December 31, 2017

Today I will be reading the second installment of the Imprimis article titled "The Problem of Identity Politics and its Solution". 

Yesterday I read the first part of the article which covered the history of identity politics from 1973 to the present.

Matthew Continetti is the author/speechmaker that created the content for this article.  Mr. Continetti errs when he claims that the origin of identity politics is the novel called "The Gulag Archipelago".  Philosophy and more specifically metaphysics is the correct origin of political theory. 

Identity politics has its foundation in Descartes and metaphysical subjectivism:  Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. 

If subjectivism were valid (which it is not) then the individual would have no other frame of reference to the world around him but identity.  Furthermore the individual would be able to be sure of nothing and would have no universal rights or wrongs to guide him/her.  The individual would only be able to act based on those character traits with which  he/she identified.

Even further, change for the subjectivist would be extremely difficult if not impossible.  Any suggestion that the subjectivist should change would be a threat to their identity.

December 9, 2017

Reading from an issue of Imprimis (Latin:  "in the first place") a publication of Hillsdale College.  This issue is excerpting parts of a speech given by an editor.  It is titled "Russian Collusion?"  The article is very detailed with lots of facts but it fails to draw a conclusion.  Was there collusion between the Trump team and the Russians?  The article seems to suggest/imply that there wasn't but it would have served everyone better if this was stated explicitly.

December 4, 2017

I read Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson to illustrate the cultural hold that the idealists have on this country.  One of the tenets of idealism is "possibility thinking".  If one is to pretend that "anything is possible" then one must suspend acknowledgement of reality.  One must also embrace new ways of experiencing the world.  Ways that aren't realistic but make up for realism in novelty and excitement.  Mr. Farson's book is one of those novel and exciting experiences.  It promises short cuts to efficacy and unlimited amounts of power.  The kind of power to operate with impunity.  No such thing of course exists.  All actions have consequences.  All decisions involve gains and losses.  Not because I say so but because the attempt to operate with impunity is in conflict with metaphysical reality.  In order to deal with reality, reality must first be consulted.