[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 345 KB, 620x640, 1569075561472.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15288399 No.15288399 [Reply] [Original]

What do you call someone who believes in an absolute "good" based on the natural order, which should be forcibly implemented in society. They believe that philosophical debates that cause people to question or even doubt that absolute good are evil, and should be censored or at least heavily restricted. They know that these ideas might have merit but think the danger they pose to society outweighs the intellectual value. I had a conversation with someone like this whom I know is a pretty smart person, and I'm wondering what kind of person thinks that way.

>> No.15288418

>>15288399
Fascist.

>> No.15288430

>>15288418
Do you mean that in the actual sense of the word or the general sense of authoritarian? Sorry I'm bad at this.

>> No.15288456

>>15288399
An Ideologue.

>> No.15288464

>>15288399
Good goy

>> No.15288475

>>15288430
Fascists are pretty big champions of enforcing hierarchies, along with 'might makes right' and the belief that some people are just naturally better than others. I guess that's a kind of 'natural order'.

>> No.15288489

>>15288399
Doesn't that apply to everyone who isn't a classical liberal?

>> No.15288495

>>15288475
Wouldn't enforcing natural hierarchies mean leaving the society dictate itself? Right now the natural hierarchy seems to be a faux-democracy with a puppet government. Why would fascists want to change this natural order of things?

>> No.15288497

>>15288399
I'm guessing that the person in question coincidentally just happened to fit the description of the kangs of said """natural""" order, right?
Maybe "natural order" is just a cop-out to justify throwing reason out the window and "rightfully" put yourself above others, in the same way others would use God, Destiny, or Values to the same end?

>> No.15288503

>>15288495
You might actually be retarded.

>> No.15288504

>>15288399
Are you reading Plato?

>> No.15288513

>>15288504
No, I can't read. I'm dictating all my posts to my handler.

>> No.15288519

>>15288495
>Wouldn't enforcing natural hierarchies mean leaving the society dictate itself?
Eh, kinda. There's defiantly a vein of anarchism running through some thoughts of fascism.
>Why would fascists want to change this natural order of things?
They would believe that today's status quo is explicitly unnatural.

>> No.15288543

>>15288399
Sane.

>> No.15288547

>>15288543
Do you think that temporary societal stability is more important than the search for truth?

>> No.15288568

>>15288547
Not him, but the search for truth should be carried out by a select few. The average person has neither interest in nor need for the latest results of philosophical inquiry, especially if all it will do is bring disorder and confusion to their lives.

>> No.15288573

>>15288495
>Wouldn't enforcing natural hierarchies mean leaving the society dictate itself?
This depends on what you mean as natural hierarchies.

People at the top always tend to impose onto others the idea that the way things are, is the best way things could be. 'Natural hierarchies' is one of the many narratives they can use to assert this claim.

>> No.15288588

>>15288573
What I mean is that this claim is not set in stone, but is just a tool to excuse a certain ideology. The ideas of good or what's natural have changed so much through time and places.

I'd gamble on that person being either a dishonest libertarian, or a dumb fascist.

>> No.15288612

>>15288568
And what if one not determined to be of the select few has a desire to discover the truth and a sufficient intellect to be capable of understanding philosophical inquiry? What if people who qualify as "the select few" aren't people who are considered good by societies metrics? Will only those determined good be allowed to seek the truth? If you've already determined what the truth is, why bother? And why should someone seeking the truth care for an ideology that suppresses it's discovery?

>> No.15288928
File: 71 KB, 856x846, 6hn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15288928

>naYChuRool
imagine being such a cuckold that you regard the blind forces of evolution as a legitimate authority over man. The entire history of the human race could be defined as the revolt against nature, those who want us to revert back to the soil and poopoo should be gunned down in the back alley

>> No.15288937

>>15288547
>Do you think that temporary societal stability is more important than the search for truth?

In a sane civilization, truth is not suppressed for the sake of "social stability."

>> No.15289854

>>15288399
An authoritarian of some kind. I'm of similar inclination, but I don't think free philosophical debate poses significant danger (vast majority of people can't even engage with it). Subversive propaganda, however (appeals to emotion, not logic), is a different story.

>> No.15289889
File: 85 KB, 645x729, 1565704248341.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15289889

>>15288928
While it's true that all events are technically 'natural', it's also true that behaviours can be evaluated in adaptive/maldaptive terms (e.g. if we stopped reproducing we'd go extinct).