Wednesday, April 26, 2006

How leftism destroys the minds of our young

Young people attend universities to gain the theoretical knowledge needed to guide their practical actions throughout the rest of their lives. But today universities have no interest in such methodology. They in turn teach the countries most impressionable minds that it’s impossible to say anything positive about reality (metaphysics) as “true reality” is distorted by our senses and tainted by our biased mind. And because all knowledge is relative to environments and minds, this serves the purpose of making it all equally relevant and thus ultimately, irrelevant (epistemology). This logically leads earnest students to their predictable conclusions: knowledge is subjective and biased towards social-economic background, which makes ethical (ethics) statements naïve, as they’re the extension of this flawed knowledge. Finally political (politics) statements, are nothing more than the culmination of these individual subjective whims and simply put “whose to say what’s right”! A mind trained with this type of philosophical foundation characterizes the university’s most inquisitive and conscientious minds.The everyday activist is only expounding on the doctrines he’s been taught, treatise which eventually produce the expected existential temperaments of fear and depression, conditions which typify the apologists of relativism, collectivism and existentialism.

It was Kant that first explained so artfully that which is known to us about the world is only known through the filters of our senses, thus leaving us unable to say anything about nature’s true reality. The inability to know or be able to say anything substantial about the real world, amounts to metaphysical nilhism, or said differently existentialism, which, for the sake of its own epistemology, states, that since all knowledge is flawed and relative, the only relevant truth is man's own subjective truth. And we’re surprised that a worldview like this, one in which uncertainty and instability is our usual state, produces citizens filled with neurosis, panic, and insecurity, clinging to collectivist agendas for their dear lives. Reason as a means to fight back has been choked by the philosophical traditions stemming from Kant, Hume, Rousseau, Comte, Dewey, Camus and Chomsky, and today, professors, students, and the left wing in general are all slavish products of this original fatalist philosophy.

Professors lecture under the hip banner of pragmatism. They stake their iconoclastic rebellion on the fact that they take no moral stands, are unwilling to express any viewpoints, and endorse teaching methods that consist of leaderless “group discussions” with the epistemological justification that “there’s no such thing as truth, man”, and “its wrong to judge”.They ignore the idea that a university’s goal should be to equip its students with the ability to judge and evaluate, instead adopting a anti-philosophical base that renders all paradigms of thought as useless. This succeeds only in frustrating and depressing the most eager minds, condemning them to an endless maze of contradiction, hypocrisy and inconsistency, with little chance of discovering any solutions. It’s a tragic situation, worthy of Shakespearean consideration, that students were smart enough to understand the necessary outcomes of what they had been taught, but not independent enough to reject the theories themselves.

These intellectual values have left students without any resources in which to counteract the unknown, for their only resource, the mind was disavowed by their vacuous mentors. Reason is man’s mechanism for comprehending his complex reality. The faculty of reason separates man from common animals and thus is his metaphysical reality: a rational animal, and not one fooled by perceptual knowledge on a consistent basis. Using reason lets man form complex conceptual relationships about reality (perceptual data), allowing him to make objective and abstract conceptual models about reality. Understanding this rationality, man knows his true individuality lay in the fact that he makes his own choices.

This inherent individualism declares he’s a sovereign individual able to make rational choices for himself, which leads to logical respect for other human beings as other rational sovereign individuals, thus affording everyone certain inalienable rights: the right to exist, to be self-sustaining and self-generating. The logical belief in individual rights eventually takes on a political meaning when the question of organization arises. The belief in and respect for individual rights rationally leads to laisser-faire capitalism. Capitalism is the only political system that consistently rewards reason and punishes irrationality. It guarantees freedom and equal opportunity. It bars force from relationships, as all actions are contractual and voluntary. It was capitalism that abolished the aristocracy, eliminated the caste system, and ended slavery. North America is not free by chance, but by choice.

This type of philosophical system produces confident minds able to discriminate between fact and fiction, valuing self-determination over other imposing, corrupt and inefficient forms of organization such as socialism and mixed economies.Instead our intellectuals academics and teachers refute this logic supporting a philosophical base that teaches students, as Ayn Rand once said “existence is an uncharted realm, an unknowable jungle, where fear and uncertainty are man’s permanent state, where skepticism is the mark of maturity, and cynicism is the mark of realism, and above all the hallmark of an intellectual is the denial of the intellect.”


At 8:48 AM, Blogger MKT said...

I still disagree.

I have never been taught by anyone who preaches that kind of view. Even my leftist profs admitted that there are objective truths and standards.

While my experience may be different from yours, I think it's illustrative of why you should not make generalizations about people simply due to their ideological viewpoint.

At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

Lots of heavy stuff here. I tend to agree with you for the most part, although there are always exceptions to the rule. I was one of those heavily-indoctrinated university students too at one time. Fortunately, reality staged an intervention and I grew up.

At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have found that this has been very much the case since the introduction of post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-colonial critiques into English-speaking scholarship. Many former-Marxists have adopted this epistemological outlook, gradually since the disillusionment of the seventies and the collapse of communism in 89.

Many have retreated into language as a last bastion against capital, the West, et al. I think that deeply rooted in this mentality is the notion that since communism/socialism (which ever sect they believed in) failed to come to fruition, the West has failed.

Moreover, they are the most cynical of power theorists. Why would they believe in democracy, freedom, equality in a liberal democratic society when they always saw it as a lie, a sham, a hollow construct. Hence, language can be used to tap on the shell of the West since the West is superficial, artificial, or even, rotten to the core.

Just look at all the vitriol on websites across the internet. The dire predictions - the end of suburbia, peak-oil, etc, etc. Mostly their complaint consists of asethetic judgement and little else. They hate the Mall, cheese burgers, a Nike swoosh, whatever - the even go after corporate entities who claim to be worker friendly. "They are not pure enough!"

In the end though, so many are pantomime revolutionaries who mistakenly wear vinegar soaked handkerchiefs while smashing the local fast-food joint. They are shadow of their revolutionary descendents.

At 11:47 AM, Blogger notloz said...

You should quote philosiphers unless you understand their FULL belif systems. Your quoteing Kant from your own personal episimological understanding of his philosiphy. Do you know of the catigorical imparitive or do you simply ignore that integral piece of information.

At 8:42 AM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

I understand the catergorical imperative and the trancendental deduction wise ass. Kant's problem was that he betrayed his "rational" system by refusing to recognize the senses ability to recognize "things" as they truly are. he believed "things in themselves"-- as they realyy exist could never truly be grasped by humans as all sensory data is dilluted through our biased minds. I call bull shit!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home