de Maistre is correct

[Anonymous No.11089968]

de Maistre held that order and security are the foundation of human life, and that order should thus have a nature and origin so imperviously mysterious as to be unassailable by reason.

Reason always questions and destroys order. Look at the West today.

[Anonymous No.11089978]

>>11089968
jus believe lol

[Anonymous No.11089987]

That sounds retarded.

[Anonymous No.11089992]

>>1108996
That's nice and all but prove this point to me without using reason

[Anonymous No.11089995]

>>11089978
Not necessarily agree with the specific papal specifications of De Maistre, but true order must comes from something unquestionable and something above us. Whether it be Ra in Egypt, Zeus in Greece, etc.

[Anonymous No.11089997]

>>11089968
reason establishes unsteady order yes, but its entirely necessary for rulers or else they’ll be overtaken by sharper wits in time. Brute strength and blind obedience cannot withstand complex assemblages of aggressive invading groups like revolutionaries or heretics or barbarian hordes without resorting to rationalist and intellectual explanations of the world and systems of logic which do not rely on blind adherence to principles of violence and displays of authoritative legitimacy. His thesis that all of civilization centers itself around hyper violent power centers is correct but this would not entail the truth of Christianity or most conservative values, save for authoritarian praxis. Which is fine, if you are a psychopath that is

What’s good for the species is not good for me.

[Anonymous No.11090005]

>>11089992
I will force you, I dont care for reason. You will submit.

[Anonymous No.11090019]

>>11090005
ok

[Anonymous No.11090035]

>>11089997
If you put down heretical groups and invaders with force and repeat that central divine conviction of your society, that would and has been sufficient.

Additionally violence not being central is the reason the west has fallen, due to the fact that christianity is based on a slave morality and eventually would lead us to question our civilizations superiority.

[Anonymous No.11090048]

>>11089968
You should read Isaiah Berlin's essay on de Maistre and see if that allows you to be more articulate when talking about his views.
>>11090005
This is just dumb

[Anonymous No.11090055]

>>11089995
jus stop thinking lol

[Anonymous No.11090063]

>>11090048
I think what you guys need to understand is that brute force works, only in these suspended weak white settings does force come to fruition often. HIT THE GYM, USE GUNS.

[Anonymous No.11090068]

>>11090063
*not come to fruition often

[Anonymous No.11090084]

>>11090063
That's a really really really really surface level understanding of RealPolitik there, Buckoru.
I think you need to read more books.

[Anonymous No.11090094]

>Look at the West today
Never been better.

>wow look at all these fucking SJWs and mudslimes infesting my society. I wish it was infested by plague instead

[Anonymous No.11090110]

>>11090094

[Anonymous No.11090116]

>>11090094
>Never been better
Atomized individuals with out meaning or purpose binge watching netlfix, addicted to prescription drugs, gluttonously eating til obesity

[Anonymous No.11090124]

>>11090110
>>11090116
Still better than the fucking plague. Come on are you guys even trying?

[Anonymous No.11090127]

>>11090116
People havent always been miserable?

[Anonymous No.11090132]

>>11090094
>never been better

[Anonymous No.11090134]

>>11090124
Some things are worse than a relatively quick albeit painful death.

[Anonymous No.11090138]

>>11090124
its not better than plague, most people should die, humans aren’t equal, fitness is only assured with mass culling and suffering. you have to harden the species with constant danger or they become psychotic and slothful. We have an obesity epidemic and a depression crisis

[Anonymous No.11090140]

>>11090116
>le everyone is a dumb consumer in western societies meme
if our societies are so horrible why do third worlders and muslims constantly emigrate here

[Anonymous No.11090144]

>>11090124
Single parents are unironically more societally destructive than the plague

[Anonymous No.11090146]

>>11090094

[Anonymous No.11090156]

>>11090140
because there is higher standard of living, that does not mean they think our values are better, they actively attempt to import their own values, they just like cheap consumer goods as well

[Anonymous No.11090171]

>>11090156
>because there is higher standard of living
And how do you think these higher standards of living are created by if not by our values?

[Anonymous No.11090172]

>>11090094

>>11090144
>Single parents
Single mothers.

[Anonymous No.11090174]

>>11090140
Because we keep bombing the shit out of their countries

[Anonymous No.11090180]

>>11090171
IQ is highly correlated with productivity, among other things.

[Anonymous No.11090181]

>>11090171
They are actually created by a distortion of our values.

[Anonymous No.11090188]

>>11090171
My point is that standard of living should not be the goal of a civilization.
Additionally, they bring down the standard of where ever they go, eventually bringing down whole countries, like South Africa

[Anonymous No.11090196]

>>11090174
Nope, economic migrants come from every country, not only from war torn ones.
>>11090180
IQ is highly correlated with liberal values
>>11090181
>no true scotsman

[Anonymous No.11090197]

>>11090094

[Anonymous No.11090201]

>>11090188
>My point is that standard of living should not be the goal of a civilization.
They aren't, in fact.

[Anonymous No.11090206]

>>11090134
Things like Netflix?

>>11090138
>strength through adversity
Do you often put yourself in danger for the sake of hardening yourself? I don't mean like taking up boxing or motorcycle riding, but more like moving to a bad neighborhood for the sake of having more danger that will forge you into a stronger self, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.11090208]

>>11090172
there's literally nothing wrong with that you lolbertarian subhuman

[Anonymous No.11090209]

>>11090140
Because we sell them a lie through our marketing and advertising, and they believe it.

[Anonymous No.11090220]

>>11090197
>Why don't delevoped countries grow as much as developing ones
Hmm...

[Anonymous No.11090221]

>>11090196
>IQ is highly correlated with liberal values
Along with neuroticism. Intelligent people are better at deluding themselves than stupid people.

[Anonymous No.11090224]

>>11090188
>My point is that standard of living should not be the goal of a civilization.

I actually recently read a good quote about that.

>It’s easy to extoll transcendent values in the abstract, but most people prioritize life, health, safety, literacy, sustenance, and stimulation for the obvious reason that these goods are a prerequisite to everything else. If you’re reading this, you are not dead, starving, destitute, moribund, terrified, enslaved, or illiterate, which means that you’re in no position to turn your nose up at these values—or to deny that other people should share your good fortune.

[Anonymous No.11090234]

>>11090220
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with this>>11090172 right?

[Anonymous No.11090242]

>>11090224
This is why you have to rely on the aristocracy to maintain and promote transcendent values--precisely for that reason, in fact. And this is why an aristocracy is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.11090245]

>>11090234
nope

[Anonymous No.11090247]

>>11090035
>Additionally violence not being central is the reason the west has fallen,
>American culture worships violence
>west fell anyway
Really gets your noggin joggin

[Anonymous No.11090253]

>>11090094
It's so great that people don't want to bring children into it.

[Anonymous No.11090255]

>>11090247
Americans are bullies and torturers, they know nothing of either suffering or inflicting genuine violence.

[Anonymous No.11090259]

>>11090247
America is not obsessed with violence, it is the most nerf place on earth, discomfort is constantly avoided, and that is what has given us the refuse that is the average american

[Anonymous No.11090260]

>>11090245

[Anonymous No.11090261]

>>11090242
among the plethora of reasons for a rich and wealthy aristocracy. It is the duty of the destitute to pay pittance for this invaluable aristocrity. Quite the honor to make a pledge and hold allegiance for ones plutocrat and be like his will against the other evil, malignant, patriarchs.

[Anonymous No.11090266]

>>11090260
>>11090094
Things are just swell when your ideology defines every single sign of decay as "not a problem"

[Anonymous No.11090272]

>>11090261
I'd rather have an aristocracy than our present merchant class, which is a de facto aristocracy with all of the downsides and none of the benefits.

[Anonymous No.11090274]

>>11090247
>American culture worships violence
lol @ s*yboys actually believing this

[Anonymous No.11090276]

>>11090260
>participations in food stamps increases after an economic crysis
really fired up my neurons

[Anonymous No.11090280]

>>11090276
>never been better
>e-except for the economic crisis i mean

[Anonymous No.11090286]

>>11090276
additionally, there has not been a year since, where foodstamps participation has gone down, just keeps going up

[Anonymous No.11090289]

>>11090276
And neither party has "solved" this financial crisis it seems, which goes to show that we're dealing with civilizational decline, rather than just "picking the wrong team"

[Anonymous No.11090294]

>>11090280
I wasn't the guy that said that we're never been better. The west peaked in the 1950-2000 period.

[Anonymous No.11090302]

>>11090272
exactly, we have leaches today, who actively try to undermine us
we need an aristocracy that reminds of beauty and power, not lena dunham

[Anonymous No.11090304]

>>11090286
>there has not been a year since, where foodstamps participation has gone down
Literally the first result on Google
http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-participation-640500

[Anonymous No.11090305]

>>11090242
I don't follow. Who will enjoy the "transcendent values" if they're all dead, sick or illiterate?

>>11090266
Right back at you. This thread already has several posters proclaiming that violence and danger are actually good you see, because they temper the human spirit or whatever. If that's the alternative then I'll take the "decay", thanks.

[Anonymous No.11090310]

>>11090305
>the alternative to globohomo socialist feminism is LITERALLY EVERYONE GETTING SICK AND DYING STUPID

[Anonymous No.11090314]

>>11090305
I think understanding that violence is scary yet understanding its necessity is what I am going for

Instead of saying that violence is scary therefore, fighting for anything is bad

[Anonymous No.11090317]

>>11090305
Where do you think transcendent values emerged from..sick, illiterate and impoverished people.

[Anonymous No.11090323]

>muh aristocracy is noble and good
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

[Anonymous No.11090331]

>>11090259
There is a not insignificant proportion of the population that fantasizes about killing people they disagree with with guns and everyone bleats and oinks whenever we bomb the shit out of a third world country, and our national anthem is basically the Dead Troops song which is why autists get upset about “disrespecting da troops” when someone doesn’t stand for the anthem. Also the amount of people who love cops (who are increasingly militarized) here is fucking astounding.

All those other civilizations that had a culture of war and violence (Rome, Fascist Italy, Khanate, Sparta) also historically have done so well and didn’t implode upon themselves at all.

[Anonymous No.11090332]

>>11090323
World War 1 and 2.

[Anonymous No.11090345]

>>11090331
If we globohomo feminist liberal democracy is meant to outlast Rome it has another 400 years to go.

[Anonymous No.11090354]

>>11090331
it's astounding to you because you're an numale hipster shutin

[Anonymous No.11090358]

>>11090354
Not and arguement :^)

[Anonymous No.11090363]

>>11090331
>Fascist Italy
People still believe in Mussolini's propaganda almost a century later

[Anonymous No.11090374]

>>11090363
Yeah it sure worked out well for him huh

[Anonymous No.11090378]

>>11090374
I didn't mean that as a praise of mussolini lol

[Anonymous No.11090382]

>>11090253
How many of those were actually "wanted" children though?

>>11090310
>globohomo socialist feminism
lol

but yes, if your alternative involves, like OP states, literally explicitly abandoning reason and installing absolute monarchy then yes, death and ignorance is what will follow.

>>11090314
We have plenty of things to fight for and against. Disease, poverty, war are on the decline but haven't been solved completely yet and they won't solve themselves - people like you and me are needed to help.

[Anonymous No.11090398]

>>11090382
Refer to this chart:
>>11090110
Rub your two brain cells together, and get back to me.

[Anonymous No.11090412]

>>11090382
this >>11090398
was in response to
>How many of those children were wanted
>>11090382
>abandoning reason and installing absolute monarchy, death will follow
Explain to me why any remotely sane monarch would even desire to discard modern medicine, let alone expend political effort on the task.
>death will follow
Death will always follow. We're mortals.

[Anonymous No.11090415]

>>11090398
>refer to this unsourced chart I've downloaded from /pol/

[Anonymous No.11090420]

>>11090382
Societies are like any system and there are many weak points at once, when we use technology to solve one problem the stress gets displaced to another weak point which breaks down. This happens on a micro as well as a macro level; and so it is not possible to have optimal efficiency--with higher standards of living we see higher incidence of mental illness, longer life spans mean more cases of cancer, heart disease, chronic musculo-skeletal problems, etc. Less poverty means higher populations with all the attendant problems. It goes on and on. Progress is a myth and often just an excuse for imperialism.

[Anonymous No.11090426]

>>11090415
>I might be wrong?!? Good thing I went to college! I know what to do here! My training has prepared me for this moment!
>SOOOURCE? SOURCE? GOT A SOURCE? SOOOURCE

[Anonymous No.11090448]

>>11089968
>Look at the West today.
Yes, this is what happens when you follow faith.

[Anonymous No.11090457]

>>11090426
Sorry for not trusting unsourced shit on the internet you faggot
>everyone who disagrees with me is muh college liberal
Spotted the american

[Anonymous No.11090469]

>>11090457
I forgive you. But the point is that clearly the number of unintended children has increased by an order of magnitude DESPITE the fact that the birthrate has massively decreased. I don't understand how leftists can genuinely believe that this can be seen as something remotely positive.

[Anonymous No.11090509]

>>11090420
What do you propose humanity should do then

[Anonymous No.11090513]

>>11090412
>Explain to me why any remotely sane monarch would even desire to discard modern medicine, let alone expend political effort on the task.
Why would the same sane ruler discard a system which brought about said medicine? Or are you assuming there's nothing left to discover?

>Death will always follow. We're mortals.
I was using "death" to mean "premature death", i.e. from so-called unnatural causes.
Then again who knows which sources of death will be eliminated in the future? We've already gotten rid of some of them.

[Anonymous No.11090520]

>>11090509
We are going to have to expand onto other planets to save this one.

[Anonymous No.11090521]

This is what's wrong with current times, literally everyone agrees there's a massive crisis and impending doom but nobody agrees on what that crisis entails and what the causes are

[Anonymous No.11090524]

>>11090513
Imagine thinking that penicillin has anything to do with egalitarianism

[Anonymous No.11090532]

>>11090513
We have gotten rid of some (virtually) but created many others (smoking, car accidents, suicide by firearm, opiod overdose)

[Anonymous No.11090535]

>>11090524
it does in the sense that penicilin was discovered by acts of reason and observation. the more humans realize the power of reason the more eager they are to judge other people by their reason rather than anything else (despite all the forces to the contrary that still exist). advances in technology, technique and production always end up coming with accompanying changes in societal structure and political/cultural thought.

[Anonymous No.11090548]

>>11090420
>progress doesn't exist because while people have stopped dying early, they have started dying later of cancer, so you see nothing has really changed
Anon, do you read the things that you're writing?

[Anonymous No.11090560]

>>11090532
Are those as bad as the ones before?

[Anonymous No.11090563]

>>11090535
I'm not the Maistre poster here, haven't actually read him myself though from what I understand I'm in broad agreement with him, generally speaking.

Penicillin was discovered by empirical observation, yes. The Scientific Method is useful, I don't see what makes you think that the employment of the Scientific Method is incompatible with faith in authority.

Inb4 science isn't about faith, obviously it is not, but the existence of science isn't incompatible with faith. Science is just a methodology, it isn't an ideology.

[Anonymous No.11090568]

>>11090548
You're using progress in the context of arbitrary technological development, what anon meant by progress is the idea that the world is slowly transforming in a positive direction which will eventually result in utopia. He's talking about metaphysicial progress.

[Anonymous No.11090569]

>>11089968
Is de Maistere fond of the eternal juden?

[Anonymous No.11090573]

>>11090569
No, based Trad Catholic.

[Anonymous No.11090578]

>>11089968
Hi Logo

[Anonymous No.11090579]

>>11090573
then his destiny is to be forgotten

[Anonymous No.11090581]

>>11090548
You are completely misrepresenting my argument. Yes, by "solving" some "problems", we have created new ones. "Progress" is a malleable term and often just an apology for the status quo, e.g. our imperialist policies are acceptable because we see people living longer (even though this entails some form of medical or social dependency usually) and hey while we are living longer in the west in many places lifespans are still short and this in many cases is due to the military expansion of the west.

[Anonymous No.11090585]

>>11090560
That is kind of a subjective question.

[Anonymous No.11090586]

>>11090579
Hasn't been forgotten yet.

[Anonymous No.11090590]

>>11090563
"science" isn't some black box tool that you just grab, use and discard. it is the child of an entire system of thought that carries with it a way of approaching the world. and faith in authority is slowly but surely questioned by that worldview, because it poses that authority should be justified by rational grounds

[Anonymous No.11090596]

>>11090590
On the contrary, science is the handmaid of authority.

[Anonymous No.11090601]

>>11090563
The other anon said "reason", not "scientific method"

[Anonymous No.11090606]

>>11090596
isn't that kind of what the OP's dude was talking about though? about how if authority is funded/backed by rational means, it will be endlessly questioned and therefore it should be founded in unshakable will or be otherwise completely inaccessible to inquiry?

science (taken broadly to mean rational inquiry) is used by power, but it also produces the very questioning of power.

[Anonymous No.11090621]

>>11090094
>institutions invented in previous eras continue to produce great technology
>"hurrrrr dis means we can let every other aspect go to shit and we're making progress xD"

[Anonymous No.11090622]

>>11090606
I may be wrong but i think people were questioning authority before enlightenment type rational discourse (i.e. why should i let this bastard whip me all my life fuck that.) Reason has laid traps that seem to suggest itself as the solution but I remain skeptical.

[Anonymous No.11090633]

>>11090457
>Spotted the american
Spotted 6/10 of he users on this site, great post barinlet

[Anonymous No.11090634]

>>11090622
well yeah reason didn't begin with the enlightenment anon. it didn't even begin with the greeks. i don't suscribe to the idea that you can definitively found "order" in a way that is impervious to reason

[Anonymous No.11090641]

>>11090590
>Science isn't some black box tool that you just grab use and discard
Correct. It's a methodology of empirical observation.
>It has all this philosophical and political baggage
I think that's basically just your opinion. I'm not convinced.
>>11090601
Using reason in such a loose context renders it synonymous with "thought" and I refuse to accept that definition in this discussion. No one is talking about banning thought.
>>11090606
The argument is that rational inquiry has produced a worse outcome than that produced by a faith-based system, so the rational thing to do is to abandon rationality.

To put it another way, empirical observation shows that those who base their decisions on empirical grounds tend to have worse outcomes than those who base their decisions on faith. So the logical thing to do is to abandon empirical methodology in the context we're discussing.

[Anonymous No.11090646]

>>11090641
>I think that's basically just your opinion.

[Anonymous No.11090654]

>>11090634
I think when it comes to questioning authority reason is not necessary.

[Anonymous No.11090656]

>>11090524
>>11090563
>I don't see what makes you think that the employment of the Scientific Method is incompatible with faith in authority

Did you know that the thing that ended up getting Galileo busted was putting the pope's arguments into the mouth of a fictional retard character?

Catholic apologists say that this is evidence that the church didn't actually hate science, only political opposition. Fair enough. But then you look at all the other scientists persecuted by the church and you see that many of them were persecuted for some sort of heresy, occultism, atheism etc.

What follows from this is that brilliant people who are more likely to defy established scientific truths will also defy authority. Either you allow satirizing the pope or you don't get heliocentrism - they both come from the same source.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/

>The Church didn’t lift a finger against science. It just accidentally created a honeytrap that attracted and destroyed scientifically curious people. And any insistence on a false idea, no matter how harmless and well-intentioned, risks doing the same.

[Anonymous No.11090658]

>>11090641
but if basing your decisions on empirical grounds has poor results, using empirical data to abandon empirical decision-making seems ill-suited.

[Anonymous No.11090659]

>>11090646
Make a logical argument as to why the employment of the Scientific Method necessitates some political system or another.

[Anonymous No.11090660]

>>11090641
>No one is talking about banning thought.
See the OP

[Anonymous No.11090674]

>>11090641
>>11090641
>The argument is that rational inquiry has produced a worse outcome than that produced by a faith-based system, so the rational thing to do is to abandon rationality.
To abandon compelte rationality and use rationality as a tool. Your objection is as scurrilous as his proposition; you are only saying that his argument, according to the rational terms he declines, is irrational.

We live under an irrational society already. Our aims as a civilization are not rational, although the means of accomplishing them have to be. We may use reason to sort through our drives and desires and temper out emotions, but our actions still proceed ultimately from the emotion and not some abstract proposition

[Anonymous No.11090688]

>>11090656
>Brilliant people who are more likely to defy established scientific truths will also defy authority
Sounds accurate.
>Either you allow satirizing the pope or you don't get heliocentrism
Are you really so sure? Seems to me that in an alternative universe there was a Galileo who could have corrected geocentrism without being a dick about it.

[Anonymous No.11090698]

>>11090641
>empirical observation shows that those who base their decisions on empirical grounds tend to have worse outcomes than those who base their decisions on faith.
Pretty sure high IQ is correlated with both rationality and success senpai

[Anonymous No.11090699]

>>11090656
>>11090688
it's not like there was geocentrism, and then one day galileo came and said "what if not" and then they said "shut up". it's a more complicated matter and galileo in his work was responding to previous people who had already made arguments in a previous context of debate.

[Anonymous No.11090711]

>>11090196
>IQ is highly correlated with liberal values
>successful people support the status quo
I wonder what the most intelligent people in 1920's america thought about race.

Not that it really matters either way. There is no group of physicians and computer programmers capable of running a society, or even understanding the Areopagitica. Useful political thought lies in the minds of the Jeffersons, Hamiltons, etc and maybe a small proportion of the population able to understand and implement their theories without being able to invent them.

[Anonymous No.11090715]

>>11090688
Well I didn't mean to say it's the only conceivable possibility. But there does seem to be a historical correlation between being a dick and making scientific discoveries.

Read the essay I linked.

[Anonymous No.11090717]

>>11090698
Yes, they are. But as one example, birthrates are higher among the religious. Darwinism punishing "rationality"

[Anonymous No.11090724]

>>11090659
It doesn't necessitate any political system, but it does require certain philosophical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.11090732]

>>11090715
>slate star codex
i'd rather not

[Anonymous No.11090735]

>>11090732
Your loss m8. Scott Alexander is smarter and better-spoken than anyone on this entire board.

[Anonymous No.11090749]

>historical correlation between being a dick and making scientific discoveries
Sure! But obviously there are ethical restraints which hamper the speed of scientific progress, and I wouldn't change that.

In the context of this discussion, if a society which does not question "Authority" is oriented correctly, albeit slows down the development of scientific progress as a result, is that really a problem?
>>11090735
Wait, didn't he get BTFO by Vox Day?

[Anonymous No.11090755]

>>11090749
you keep talking like a society "decides" what happens to itself. 10000 years of history make that claim very doubtful.

it's not about "the society where there is faith in authority yet still progress", it's about even TRYING to implement that kind of society. protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.11090767]

>>11090634
>you can't found "order" in a way that is impervious to reason
You betray a bias, you believe that reason is opposed to order, rather than reinforcing of it. The idea is not that Reason and Order are opposed, but rather that those who oppose Order cite Reason in their defense.

[Anonymous No.11090773]

>>11090755
>it's not about "the society where there is faith in authority yet still progress", it's about even TRYING to implement that kind of society. protip: you can't
We have in the past

[Anonymous No.11090775]

>>11090755
>here's some basic historical determinism a la Hegel
Man has free will, society is made of men, men can change society.

[Anonymous No.11090779]

>>11090749
>In the context of this discussion, if a society which does not question "Authority" is oriented correctly, albeit slows down the development of scientific progress as a result, is that really a problem?

Perhaps. But now we're starting to make trade-offs.
This part of the thread started with "what could science have possibly to do with the political system" and we've moved to "okay, science and correct politics can be in conflict, let's find a balance between the two". It looks like we've made progress.

>get BTFO by Vox Day
That seems like a very unlikely experience for anyone.

[Anonymous No.11090783]

>>11089968

I agree, he is correct

[Anonymous No.11090786]

>>11090656
>What follows from this is that brilliant people who are more likely to defy established scientific truths will also defy authority
doesn't follow at all actually, very stupid opinion

[Anonymous No.11090795]

>>11090767
i mean the OP post says
>order should thus have a nature and origin so imperviously mysterious as to be unassailable by reason.
i don't think there are many ways to interpret that

>>11090775
>epistemological individualism
one man might have free will, social men do not.

[Anonymous No.11090796]

>>11090786
it doesn’t follow but i would not say its stupid, there are instances where this might be the case but its not necessitated by its premises at all

[Anonymous No.11090813]

>>11090779
>we're making trade-offs
No, this part of the thread started off with "Science means that there cannot be faith in authority" and that is a claim I still don't abide.
>>11090795
That is the way he put it, but Order and Reason are concepts. Concepts aren't "active" they don't attack each other. He was speaking conceptually, but the meaning of the statement boils down to "Men of Reason shouldn't attack men of Order in the name of Reason"

[Anonymous No.11090821]

>>11090656
That article is dumb as fuck and rest on the rhetorical presumption that scientific and philosophical matters are separate, and so is the source it cites
(http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/596-scientists-executed-by-the-catholic-%20church.html))
>well uhm, the Church didn't burn Bruno for his scientific views, they burned him because of his eretical views
>nevermind that they are part of the same system of thought haha
Also Galileo was infact banned from teaching and talking about Heliocentrism in 1616, the ban was only revoked seven years later when Urban VIII and only because Urban was a friend of his. So saying that church never lifted a finger against science is a rhetorical trick and historically false.

[Anonymous No.11090822]

>>11090116
The amazing thing about the West is you can choose to watch netflix, take drugs, and engorge yourself if that's what you want.

If you reject your animal instincts and choose to suffer, you have that option as well. Unlike those who live in 3rd world countries, you have the choice.

[Anonymous No.11090831]

>>11090821
when Urban VIII was elected Pope

[Anonymous No.11090838]

>>11090813
i have never read this de maistre guy, maybe you're an expert, but wikipedia says
>According to Maistre, any attempt to justify government on rational grounds will only lead to unresolvable arguments about the legitimacy and expediency of any existing government, and that this, in turn, will lead to violence and chaos. Maistre therefore argued that the legitimacy of government must be based on compelling but non-rational grounds, which its subjects must not be allowed to question. Maistre went on to argue that authority in politics should therefore derive from religion, and that in Europe this religious authority must ultimately lie with the Pope.
once again that seems pretty clear cut.

[Anonymous No.11090840]

>>11090822
>not being an anesthatized pigish retarded half gay barely sentient domesticated house pet is unintelligent suffering
you see this is why i want great conflagration

[Anonymous No.11090848]

[Anonymous No.11090850]

>>11090821
>That article is dumb as fuck and rest on the rhetorical presumption that scientific and philosophical matters are separate, and so is the source it cites

I don't think we've read the same article. The author asserts the opposite - you CAN'T disentangle philosophical and scientific views, you can't only persecute heretics but leave scientists to their work.

"didn't lift a finger against science" is more of an exaggeration.
>I’m not a historian and I don’t want to debate any of these accounts. Let’s say they’re all true, let’s accept every excuse we’re given and accept the Church never burned anybody just for researching science. Scientists got in trouble for controversial views on non-scientific subjects like prophecies or the Trinity, or for political missteps.
"Let's say they're all true" is him claiming that hi argument would be correct EVEN IF the Church didn't lift a finger against science (which apparently isn't true).

[Anonymous No.11090856]

>>11090838
>Justify government on rational grounds
To whom is the government justifying itself? To men.
>Unresolvable arguments
between men
>which its subjects must not be allowed to question
so men aren't allowed to attack "Order" on the grounds of "Reason". He isn't speaking of a vacuum, he's talking about human beings in the world.

[Anonymous No.11090858]

[Anonymous No.11090879]

>>11090856
what in the world made you think i wasn't talking about human beings in the world? the whole point is that he was reacting against the collapse of what he thought was the ideal (or maybe he didn't). that collapse was brought about by the society itself, not alien invaders. the "enlightenment philosophers" this maistre dude seems to abhor were a product of society.

[Anonymous No.11090886]

>>11090850
>The Church was a great patron of science, no one believed in a flat earth, Galileo had it coming, et cetera. Unam Sanctam Catholicam presents some of these stories and explains why they’re less of a science-vs-religion slam dunk than generally supposed
This unwarranted apologia is what I was referring. Saying "It wasn't actually that bad because they didn't burn him for his scientific views but for his theological ones", ironically enough, resembles the new atheist mindset under which the search for truth is not a united pursuit and science and philosophy are separated. When the Enlightenment thinkers attacked religious dogmatism they weren't only referring to science.

[Anonymous No.11090900]

>>11090634
>>11090879
>I don't subscribe to the idea that you can definitively found "order" in a way that is impervious to reason
The government can make it illegal for people to question the legitimacy of the government on the basis of "Reason". If what you're saying is that you think that won't work, I'm curious as to why.

[Anonymous No.11090901]

>>11090886
Again, when you read that in context, you'll see that it's more of an exaggeration, or a citing of someone else's opinion. The very link above that paragraph leads to an article in which the author very thoroughly argues that the early medieval period totally sucked and with no thanks to the Church. Doesn't mean that there are no exaggerated myths from the other side - the Dark Ages were bad, but not THAT bad.

[Anonymous No.11090952]

>>11090901
Idk, it does sound like he was expressing his opinion and not exaggerating. He clearly says
>Historical consensus declares this a myth invented by New Atheists

The tone makes it seem like he was just repeating something obvious and often heard.

[Anonymous No.11090985]

>>11090840
From an outside perspective you could view any way of life as suffering. I'm talking about one's own perspective of their life.

If you're starving in some disgusting refugee shithole after fleeing your destroyed home in terror, you're probably suffering. Congrats to the lucky human that could truly enjoy a life like that. If you're safe at home eating snacks while browsing 4chan and suffering (which is a valid perpective), it sucks but unlike the refugee you have the option to go to a war zone or starve yourself or change your life (Or better yet your perpective) how you see fit.

[Anonymous No.11090995]

>>11090985
>hahah just change your life bro hahah there are a lot of products you haven't tried yet! Forget about the suffering your lifestyle causes others like those refugees i mentioned that shouldn't bother you im feeling tuckered we should all just take a nap

[Anonymous No.11091077]

>>11090995
If you're bothered because your lifestyle causes suffering to refugees you have the option to help them instead.
And before you say
>hahaha dude just abandon your whole life and join the peace corps and live an some shitty refugee camp helping the poor
You don't have to go to such extremes. You can help a bit by donating, you can help some more by volunteering to help collect donations and supplies, or if you want you go to the extremes. Or a million options in between.

[Anonymous No.11091092]

>>11091077
You are right of course.

[Anonymous No.11091322]

>>11090255
Explain (interested).

[Anonymous No.11091333]

>>11090094

[Anonymous No.11091373]

>>11090048
IB wrote lots about JdM- I'm guessing youd reference the long piece in 3 Critics of the Enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.11091486]

>>11090822
overstimulation of the human body is slavery, your brain is not ready for the stimuli we have today, and consumption is what is pushed endlessly. We are broken and lost and addicted.

[Anonymous No.11091728]

>>11091333
Robespierre's one good idea was cutting off the heads of dissenters. I just wish the gutless west would follow his example.

[Anonymous No.11091736]

>>11091322
America has only ever won its wars through technological superiority over its opponents and sheer numbers. Whether it's wiping out the Native Americans or coming in late to Germany, America has never won a war against an equal opponent, and there are so few examples of valor by American soldiers relative to soldiers from other countries that it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11091738]

He didnt happen to reach this position through reason did he?

[Anonymous No.11091744]

>>11091738
>being rational
>ever
This isn't how Diogenes would have wanted you to live you featherless biped

[Anonymous No.11092146]

>>11089968
modern society is infinitely more ordered than it was during de maistre's lifetime. in fact it was reason which developed the totalitarian societies of the ussr and nazi germany: go to modern china today with its vast police state and censorship of information and tell me that reason and order are in conflict.

[Anonymous No.11093271]

>>11089968
>not wanting to surpass the foundation of human life
Typical for a pleb and for a christfag, even if ironic.

[Anonymous No.11093725]

>>11091738
Clearly you didn't read the thread before posting.

[Anonymous No.11093752]

>>11092146
Consider the fact that over the last 50 years medical technology has become more and more effective, resulting in fewer deaths from attempted murders. The United States is more violent now than it was in the 1950s.

[Anonymous No.11093818]

>>11090822
>The amazing thing about the West is you can choose to
No you can't.
Nobody "chooses" to beahve like that. Choice presupposes freedom to choose. Freedom is when the intellect is controlling the passions. Living that kind of life requires the opposite, therefore nobody actually chooses it.

[Anonymous No.11095159]

>>11093752
[citation needed]
Raw numbers also won't be accepted since population has increased. Show statistics that account for population to compare occurrence of crime per say 1000 people.

[Anonymous No.11095509]

>>11091736
What about the civil war? What about the Revolution and War of 1812.

[Anonymous No.11095561]

>>11095159
>Gib source
People like you are insufferable. Look it up yourself.