Liberals, like conservatives, have a general habit of thinking that assumptions are valid as long as they approve of them or that secondary issues are the true core of reality. While conservatives have become more ensnared by conspiracy theories that liberals have nefariously taken over educational organizations, liberals flee from rationalism with its necessary truths, absolute certainty, supreme centrality, and universal accessibility to the irrational glorification of education. The only truths that can be known with absolute certainty are not known through education, and these truths would remain immutable even if historical, scientific, and moral truths were different than they are. Liberals have allowed this to become one of the most predominant aspects of their opposition to things like racism or sexism, failing to understand that the stupidity and injustice of this discrimination transcends any that any historical matter and is not knowable because a book or teacher makes a hearsay claim.
For instance, the Tulsa race massacre of 1921 and the murder of Emmett Till in 1955, among other major examples, are not why racism would be immoral; if racism is irrational and evil--and it is still irrational even if morality does not exist--then it is immoral whether or not any racist acts were ever carried out at any time in history. The same is true when it comes to women being treated as rulers secondary to male monarchs or emperors or men getting conscripted into military campaigns because of their gender. That these things are sexist is blatant, and that these things are irrational has nothing to do with what events have occurred and whether people talk or hear about them. That they are unjust has to do with moral and theological matters, not how individuals or societies feel about them or what people of the past have done. The historical record can provide examples of these deeds, but it cannot prove any of these events took place, and history is not what grounds truths and knowledge regarding illicit discrimination either way.
Truths about core metaphysics and epistemology do not in any way hinge on what events happened in the past (with the exception of the uncaused cause starting the causal chain that produced created things). In reality, the only thing that is ultimately true because an event happened is that the event occurred, but even then, there is no way for humans to know that a murder or riot or any other such thing happened on a given historical date, much less whether the world has even existed for more than a moment. However, it is always objectively true that it does not follow from having certain genitalia or skin colors that any intellectual, moral, personality, or proficiency traits are present. Anyone who experiences or observes discrimination on the basis of something like gender or race absolutely needs to look only to reason to understand the core issue, with the truth about historical events, no matter what has actually happened in the past, being dictated by the laws of logic in the first place.
Even if historical events such as the Tulsa race massacre were provable (and this is not a denial of any particular historical event at all, just an acknowledgement of rationalistic skepticism), this would not reveal or ground whether or not racism is evil, and the fact that racism is inherently irrational has nothing to do with what specific things people have done to each other in the past. It would have to do with the nature of racism as necessitated and revealed by the objective truths of reason. Though at first it would have to be promoted out of sheer stupidity, this backwards emphasis on history and education over the intrinsic truth and certainty of logic is passionately embraced by many liberals, and they are too unintelligent to see that they sometimes focus on wholly or largely irrelevant things when talking about philosophical issues like racism or sexism. Of course, they also often excuse racism or sexism depending on who it is directed towards and believe in morality because of emotional appeal anyway, so they are usually quite irrationalistic here in other ways as well.
It is one thing to be personally interested in investigating what has allegedly transpired throughout history as suggested by hearsay and other fallible evidences, which are secondary to logical necessity even if they were verifiable. Logical axioms and the logical deductions grounded in them are the pathways to knowledge, including knowledge of the nature of racism or sexism. Nothing can contradict the necessary truths of reason and nothing is knowable apart from looking to reason. Some people are stupid enough to get emotionalistically carried away with cultural trends emphasizing education over direct rationalistic discovery or historical events, which cannot actually be proven, over logical truths. If someone thinks they need conversational prompting, education, the internet, or books to "know" something, they are irrational, philosophically incompetent, and too blind to distinguish hearsay and assumptions from logical proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment