What’s that?
What would “unconscious knowledge” be?
What’s that mean?
Superior for what?
What’s a “soul” or “form”?
What’s a “metaphysical principle” or “incomplete being”?
Maybe I would understand that claim if I knew what an “embodied spirit” was?
And maybe I would get what it would even mean to “evolve from the human soul” if I knew what a soul was?
We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can’t define it.
Conscious knowledge: Consider knowing that this page is white and black. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of this. What is it? There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals. There is no such thing as unconscious knowledge.
Another way of saying humans are embodied spirits is that they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.
The soul is the metaphysical principle that makes humans members of the same category of being. The body is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.
What’s the difference between “comprehending” and “defining”?
(And, of course if you use the word “free will” to just mean knowing about ourselves, then nobody would even come close to denying that we have it.)
See this post (and this clarification) to see why I don’t think that there’s even a difference between those two things.
Well, I understand what it means to be conscious of your own existence (I mean, I know that I am).
But what’s an “indefinability”?
What category of being would that be?
Did you explain why in your essay?
Liberalism is based upon a purely rational and scientific theory of social cooperation. The policies it recommends are the application of a system of knowledge which does not refer in any way to sentiments, intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided, mystical experiences, and the personal awareness of superhuman phenomena. In this sense the often misunderstood and erroneously interpreted epithets atheistic and agnostic can be attributed to it. It would, however, be a serious mistake to conclude that the sciences of human action and the policy derived from their teachings, liberalism, are antitheistic and hostile to religion. They are radically opposed to all systems of theocracy. But they are entirely neutral with regard to religious beliefs which do not pretend to interfere with the conduct of social, political, and economic affairs.
*Theocracy is a social system which lays claim to a superhuman title for its legitimation. The fundamental law of a theocratic regime is an insight not open to examination by reason and to demonstration by logical methods. Its ultimate standard is intuition providing the mind with subjective certainty about things which cannot be conceived by reason and ratiocination. If this intuition refers to one of the traditional systems of teaching concerning the existence of a Divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, we call it a religious belief. If it refers to another system we call it a metaphysical belief. Thus a system of theocratic government need not be founded on one of the great historical religions of the world. It may be the outcome of [*p. 156] metaphysical tenets which reject all traditional churches and denominations and take pride in emphasizing their antitheistic and antimetaphysical character. In our time the most powerful theocratic parties are opposed to Christianity and to all other religions which evolved from Jewish monotheism. What characterizes them as theocratic is their craving to organize the earthly affairs of mankind according to the contents of a complex of ideas whose validity cannot be demonstrated by reasoning. They pretend that their leaders are blessed by a knowledge inaccessible to the rest of mankind and contrary to the ideas maintained by those to whom the charisma is denied. The charismatic leaders have been entrusted by a mystical higher power with the office of managing the affairs of erring mankind. They alone are enlightened; all other people are either blind and deaf or malefactors.
It is a fact that many varieties of the great historical religions were affected by theocratic tendencies. Their apostles were inspired by a craving for power and the oppression and annihilation of all dissenting groups. However, we must not confuse the two things, religion and theocracy.
William James calls religious “the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” [5] He enumerates the following beliefs as the characteristics of the religious life: That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance; that union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end; that prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof?-?-be that spirit “God” or “law”?–is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world. Religion, James goes on to say, also includes the following psychological characteristics: A zest which adds itself like a gift to life, and takes the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism, and furthermore an assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affection.**[6]
*This characterization of mankind’s religious experience and feelings does not make any reference to the arrangement of social cooperation. Religion, as James sees it, is a purely personal and individual relation between man and a holy, mysterious, and awe???-inspiring divine Reality. It enjoins upon man a certain mode of individual conduct. But it does not assert anything with regard to the problems of social organization. [*p. 157] St. Francis d’Assisi, the greatest religious genius of the West, did not concern himself with politics and economics. He wanted to teach his disciples how to live piously; he did not draft a plan for the organization of production and did not urge his followers to resort to violence against dissenters. He is not responsible for the interpretation of his teachings by the order he founded.
Liberalism puts no obstacles in the way of a man eager to adjust his personal conduct and his private affairs according to the mode in which he individually or his church or denomination interprets the teachings of the Gospels. But it is radically opposed to all endeavors to silence the rational discussion of problems of social welfare by an appeal to religious intuition and revelation. It does not enjoin divorce or the practice of birth control upon anybody. But it fights those who want to prevent other people from freely discussing the pros and cons of these matters.
In the liberal opinion the aim of the moral law is to impel individuals to adjust their conduct to the requirements of life in society, to abstain from all acts detrimental to the preservation of peaceful social cooperation and to the improvement of interhuman relations. Liberals welcome the support which religious teachings may give to those moral precepts of which they themselves approve, but they are opposed to all those norms which are bound to bring about social disintegration from whatever source they may stem.
It is a distortion of fact to say, as many champions of religious theocracy do, that liberalism fights religion. Where the principle of church interference with secular issues is in force, the various churches, denominations and sects are fighting one another. By separating church and state, liberalism establishes peace between the various religious factions and gives to each of them the opportunity to preach its gospel unmolested.
Liberalism is rationalistic. It maintains that it is possible to convince the immense majority that peaceful cooperation within the framework of society better serves their rightly understood interests than mutual battling and social disintegration. It has full confidence in man’s reason. It may be that this optimism is unfounded and that the liberals have erred. But then there is no hope left for mankind’s future.
------------
[3] Many economists, among them Adam Smith and Bastiat, believed in God. Hence they admired in the facts they had discovered the providential care of “the great Director of Nature.” Atheist critics blame them for this attitude. However, these critics fail to realize that to sneer at the references to the “invisible hand” does not invalidate the essential teachings of the rationalist and utilitarian social philosophy. One must comprehend that the alternative is this: Either association is a human process because it best serves the aims of the individuals concerned and the individuals themselves have the ability to realize the advantages they derive from their adjustment to life in social cooperation. Or a superior being enjoins upon reluctant men subordination to the law and to the social authorities. It is of minor importance whether one calls this supreme being God, Weltgeist, Destiny, History, Wotan, or Material Productive Forces and what title one assigns to its apostles, the dictators.
[4] Cf. Max Stirner (Johan Kaspar Schmidt). The Ego and His Own, trans. by S.T. Byington (New York, 1907).
Hopefully that could be used as a guide as to how relgious discussion is kind of pointless within the framework we are trying to talk about. Also, bonus points for me for using Mises’ reference in HA to Max Stirner.
Fuck arguing the soul. Human beings are superior to other animals, we are the only animals to bypass evolution and beat the time it takes to adapt soley by using our brains. That’s an insane feat. We evolve through thinking.
David Roemer–Gratuitous assumptions are gratuitous.
How does that make us “superior”?
And what are we superior for? In other words, superior for what?
I’m just saying in regards to evolution and what a species can accomplish, adaptability, we are superior. No other species has an imagination or such an ability to create. Then again insects will probably outlive us all.
I’m not arguing the soul. How’d this get to biology and religion so quickly?
When did humans evolve a soul?
Does the OP have a more precise definition for soul? Esoteric ideas like that can mean all kinds of things to different people- truly some cherish it- but what is it to you?
In my opinion, the term liberalism refers to a political movement that began with Machiavelli and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Reagan-Thatcher tax-cuts, and welfare reform. A liberal is not a political movement but refers to someone who says things like, “Liberalism is based on a purely scientific and rational theory of social cooperation.” This hogwash means laissez faire to some liberals and government ownership to other liberals.
The reference to “intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided” is a derogatory reference to revealed religion. The author of this screed thinks people who believe in the Bible are his intellectual inferiors. Such people are immature and prone to political extremism.
It is absurd for a biologist to say, “free will evolved” because free will is not a scientific concept. We can comprehend free will because we have it. However, we can not explain, explicate, or define fr**ee will. But it is because humans have free will and animals don’t that slavery is wrong, but it is okay to own animals and use them for food. Humans are a separate class or category of being.
While many liberals say, “free will is an illusion,” they live their lives as if they have free will. They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again. In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts. A biologist can do this with the metaphysical categories of form (soul) and matter (body), as I explained above. Biology is the study of the human body, not the human spiritual soul.
If you can’t even tell us what you’re talking about, why exactly should we listen to you?
What’s the phrase “scientific concept” refer to?
How could I know whether I have something if I don’t even know what it is?
Why don’t animals have “free will” (whatever that means)?
Maybe because they’re “determined” to do so?
So now your ideological enemies are a bunch of liars?
Honestly I still have no idea what that means.
My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.
So.. it’s ok for you to assume moral superiority but nor for liberals (when in fact you mean a small subset of the liberal… and more imporatntly the atheist community, who many happen to be leftists [not necessarily liberals])?
I see
If you’re saying that libertarians think religious faith is irrational, then that’s (1) extremely collectivist of you and (2) a joke. I’m very Catholic.
Haha, seriously. Whether you believe in God or are purely atheist (believing in evolution alone), human beings are superior to other animals.
Wasn’t Marx against ideology in the first place? What can be a true Marxist but a person who embraces ideology and thus ends up rejecting Marx himself? I have started to guess that Marxism is not an ideology so much as a broad umbrella of thought under which many people fall. The word is used to describe people as disparate as Gramsci, Trotsky, Farrakhan, Malcolm X,.etc.
See, I think the whole philosophy/ideology/religion thing is actually separated by a thin line, and that’s probably why, despite some Marxian socialists content being otherwise Christian (or Muslim or whatever religion), many of them end up taking their ideas to their logical endpoint, until you have socialists who condemn marriage and even taboo against pedophilia or adultery. The latter is an extreme case, but it’s a sign of a socialist who has taken his ideas to a religious end.
Yet, you have James Burnham, who once identified himself as a socialist but still admired many philosophers other than Trotsky, such as Machiaevelli. He eventually called himself a conservative, after he was content with not all socialist ideas being applicable to the world. More of a philosopher than a rigid true believer.
Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will. Free will leads logically to God’s existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins. Free will means we possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being.
Not all libertarians are liberals. Only the ones who think religious faith is irrational are liberals.
