Let's talk Dark Enlightenment

pickup_sticks · 2014-02-06T22:39:44+00:00

I don't know enough about DE philosophy to draw strong conclusions. However, I think that movements like this and TRP tap into a psychological desire to be an insider who knows the truth. The same thing animates cults. So when I encounter someone who has a really strong ideological opinion of any stripe, I wonder what are the psychological benefits (aka feelings) they are getting from that level of commitment, and in turn whether and how much those feelings cloud their thinking.

That doesn't mean I think TRP is all bunk (I actually buy into a lot of it), but just about any philosophy, no matter how "rational," ultimately only succeeds to the extent that enough followers get good feelings from contemplating them. Feelings are not objectively measurable, and you can't value one feeling over another without making an arbitrary decision. For example, many people value liberty over security, but there's no rational reason to do that without prioritizing other feelings (i.e. it feels good to self-actualize in a capitalist economy), which in turn are not rational etc... turtles all the way down.

At this point I'm wandering into Goedel Escher Bach territory so I'll just leave it at that.

fiat_lux_ · 2014-02-06T03:32:55+00:00

Such a poorly defined group. A relatively small group of digerati decided that they could lump a bunch of disgruntled netizens under an umbrella. Now it's catching on to the point where it's even causing concern.

The fact of the matter is, most people have questioned ideas of the enlightenment. This is a quote from you yourself:

I totally agree. I mean, the most important principles of the enlightenment were individual liberty and reason (science, logic, rationalism). It's arguable that those two pillars of enlightenment can't even perfectly coincide. By that, I mean you have to sacrifice a little of both.

Besides, a lot of people question or even outright reject principles like popular sovereignty, individual freedom, and political and legal equality. They just don't label themselves or even know the labels (unless they've kept that hidden from me). The DE might just be too dorky for most people to admit knowing about.

Funny thing, just today, in a discussion about the NSA with a friend, he flat out said things like, "What they are doing is right." / "That is how you should run a country." / "Americans overrate human rights." He has some other flags, like being a bitcoin millionaire, and enjoying talking about conspiracy theories that foster images of the Cathedral. This is the same guy who says that the Russian gov't is fucking up his homeland though, so I don't know.

sh1v · 2014-02-06T07:06:10+00:00

First off, I'd like to distinguish between the scientific method, a tool for describing what is, and liberty, which is a political ideal concerning what society should be like.

Second off, I would NOT describe TRP as part of the dark enlightenment. To really qualify TRP would need to actively advocate for reducing women to a pre feminist state, and that includes first wave feminism. While some members of TRP certainly ascribe to that view, it seems apparent to me that more do not (rather seeking to create a post feminist society than pre feminist). TRP is relatively apolitical in that it allows for a spectrum of possible responses to the current state of gender affairs, everything from wanton slut exploitation, to spinning plates, to attempts to rebuild marriage 1.0 (ie male dominated marriage). The latter response is by no means the dominant one, but for TRP to truly be reactionary, it would need to be.

Where TRP does agree with the DE is a recognition of the limitations of science, both its present state and the scope of what it could possibly achieve. The soft sciences (to take some examples: sociology, political science, economics) are by no means scientific in the same way as physics, chemistry, and other direct, provable/falsifiable observations as to the nature and laws of physical reality. Without the ability to control for variables, isolate phenomena, or construct universally applicable/testable theories, the conclusions drawn by any sociological study (for instance) will be necessarily limited. It is impossible to determine what causes a phenomenon unless you can isolate or control for causes, and when you're studying human beings, that simply isn't ethically or practically feasible.

Furthermore, science is not immune to bias or manipulation from external interests. And indeed, the softer the science, the less likely it is to be objective. One need only look at the history of phrenology or eugenics for an example of how those interests can twist science into something that is decidedly NOT an objective study of reality. Where DE and mainstream thought differ is that DE thinkers see the bias and influence of external interests (liberal/leftist idealogy in particular) on science becoming more widespread and consolidated, if less crude, obvious and malicious, over time (the Cathedral) whereas mainstream thinkers would assert that science has become largely neutral and objective.

Let's take a common argument here at purplepilldebate. To what extent are behavior differences between the sexes biological, and to what extent are they a result of socialization? If we're to be completely honest, we have no way of knowing. Our current understanding of neuroscience is extremely limited; we can see where connections formed in the brain, but we can't measure the extent various factors played in forming those connections. We can't perform an experiment that controls for either influence. Nevertheless, particularly left leaning blue pillers will often dismiss the red pill view that gender differences have a significant biological component as pseudoscience, while themselves accepting the even more tenuous and currently unprovable theory that gender differences are entirely social in origin. Due to the present limits of science, anyone can find a study suggestive of the conclusion they wish to draw. Anyone can poke holes in the opposing studies due to the inherent weakness of soft science, and proclaim themselves victorious. Does such an exercise actually further understanding between both sides of a debate? Not really. Is there a scientific consensus on the subject? Not even close.

To tie this back into TRP, one of the reasons TRP is percieved as anti science is its simple recognition that A) Partly due to the inherent limits of soft science, and partly due to the taboo of the subject, there are not going to be very many good, rigorous studies on the most efficient methods by which a man can achieve his sexual goals. In contrast to TRP, blue pill critics often seem to hold the assumption that, in absence of scientific authority, or the ability to form it, one should default to a state of mental inaction, refraining from making any sort of educated guesses, nor attempting to adapt and learn from direct experience, or the experiences of others.

I think in their eagerness to assert the superiority of the scientific method (which even TRPers ought to agree with), certain blue pillers go so far as to deny the validity of all other forms of knowledge acquisition. Before the invention of the scientific method, people had to learn somehow, and they largely did so by learning or observing other people who were successful or prestigious in whatever sphere they wished to learn about. Tradition, dissemination of anecdotes, call it what you will. If it were not a valid means of spreading knowledge, we'd still be living in caves. Where science cannot or will not provide answers, these older methods can and should be utilized. Hence PUAs, and hence TRP.

[deleted] · 2014-02-06T21:17:01+00:00

[permanently deleted]

IIHotelYorba · 2014-02-06T06:50:04+00:00

It seems pretty disingenuous to put people who point out the lack of scientific evidence for feminist concepts in a category with people who think the devil buried fossils to trick archaeologists.

AshleyYakeley · 2014-02-06T08:47:36+00:00

The movement of course has many arms,

Oh not this shit again. It looks like someone's "all my enemies are really part of the same thing" fantasy. Seriously, Less Wrong on the same graph as traditionalist Christians and ethno-nationalists?

It would be just as easy to do a graph from, say, an evangelic Christian point of view, showing links between rationalists, feminists, liberals, futurists, secular whatever that would partially overlap this one.

namae_nanka · 2014-02-06T16:24:08+00:00

It seems the DE rejects some elements of rationalism and science

while rejecting the disciplines that might harm the DE. In that way, the DE seems more like ideology than philosophy.

LMAO that's rich.

Galton on the black intelligence,

Secondly, the negro race is by no means wholly deficient in men capable of becoming good factors, thriving merchants, and otherwise considerably raised above the average of whites—that is to say, it can not unfrequently supply men corresponding to our class C, or even D. It will be recollected that C implies a selection of 1 in 16, or somewhat more than the natural abilities possessed by average foremen of common juries, and that D is as I in 64—a degree of ability that is sure to make a man successful in life. In short, classes E and F of the negro may roughly be considered as the equivalent of our C and D—a result which again points to the conclusion, that the average intellectual standard of the negro race is some two grades below our own.

which holds today, versus Franz Boas nonsense of racial equality or Stephen Gould's charlatanry.

Rewriting academic history of his more famous cousin,

http://blog.jim.com/science/a-tell-revealing-central-authority-over-the-official-line.html

Science, reason, and liberty were core concepts of the enlightenment, and they continue to dominate the world today.

No they don't, the cathedral does, and its priests are the academic commissars who make sure to vet their throats before they utter anything lest they find themselves Larry Summered. That's why Robert Putnam has to stutter about how his findings may dispute the great god of diversity but use some rituals and maybe he will be happy again.

So stop making such useless threads and assertions when you have no clue what the hell you're talking of. Cathedral comes from Moldbug's blog(he often puts Harvard as the epicenter of it), and though he is verbose to the point of tears, it'll be far better if you start with his 'a gentle introduction to unqualified reservations' .

Ahabs_Pegleg · 2014-02-06T22:15:47+00:00

They all need to read North and Weingast 1989. Famed (right-wing) economic historian demonstrates very convincingly that the ascent of parliamentary authority in 1688 was a huge win for the UK, ensured private property rights and laid the foundation for industrial capitalism.

The idea that absolute monarchs would somehow be better for economic conditions is some crazy stupid bullshit.

Title	Let's talk Dark Enlightenment
Author	CFRProflcopter
Upvotes	8
Comments	82
Date	February 6, 2014 1:56 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1x52m2/lets_talk_dark_enlightenment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/lets-talk-dark-enlightenment.286254 https://theredarchive.com/post/286254

Comments