[size=95]I am a nihilist professor of philosophy. I once believed that intolerance of my teaching would come primarily from the Right. I was wrong. Liberal professors have condemned my nihilism as unacademic philosophy, some have even attempted to prevent my teaching it at any college or university. Conservative colleagues have never been that intolerant of our disagreement about what constitutes proper academic teaching of philosophy. This intolerance springs from liberalism’s fear of its inherent nihilism. Democratic liberals really are on my side. They are nihilists too cowardly to face their own nihilism.
[Neumann, Liberalism, Chapter 2.][/size]
I know this isn’t part of the ‘debate’, but I was really intrigued by this–
What an incredible learning experience that would be, and perhaps not even primarily for the students so much as the teachers. And to teach this way willfully seems like an statement of honesty, of humility. I don’t know much about Neumann, but I don’t see anything “sick” about what I read. His thinking is honest, even if at his own expense (…or so it seems).
I’ll do my own research anyway. I just thought that idea for a class was a cool notion. Teaching along side an opponent of your own philosophy is to make your opinions privy to every conceivable disagreement.
This I admittedly agree with, if by “cod” you mean based upon oversimplified labels that lead to questionable assertions. Of course, the text is called “Liberalism”, so I suppose that could be expected. That isn’t a poke at ‘liberals’, to be sure, but ‘politically minded’ philosophy in general (not to be confused with ‘political philosophy’, in my opinion). He still doesn’t strike me as necessarily dishonest, though; just set on a fairly narrow scope of distinction, which may be intentional (given the subject matter).
On a side note, I find it extremely intriguing how professed ‘nihilistic’ intellectuals take such an interest in the apparent nihilism of others. It’s like a theist looking for signs of faith in another person to affirm his own. Nobody seems to see the similarity though…
There’s an excellent essay, On Bullshit - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit - which makes a useful distinction between bullshit and dishonesty.
Bullshitters aren’t Intentionally deceiving or misleading anyone, they just don’t care about the truth or falsity of their words. Their aim is to impress, to make a point, to brag or insult.
I take you’re only talking about the last three sentences. Elsewhere, Neumann writes:
[size=95]The death of god means the destruction of mankind, of any community, whether within one’s own self or country or mankind or the universe. It isolates the nihilist in the nothingness revealed by radical atheism. Horror of this isolation usually prevents more than half-hearted atheism, driving men to revere mere jackasses, shadows of the now dead god. The politically loudest form of contemporary jackass worship is the democratic-socialistic effort to embrace the christian morality while destroying the last vestiges of the traditional Christian faith responsible for that morality.
Contemporary democratic “liberation” movements generally despise traditional Christian orthodoxy while asserting the supreme goodness of its compassion for suffering, impoverished humanity. They insist that men have a right to life, freedom and equality. Had they been tough enough to experience uncompromising atheism, they would see no compelling reason for these rights or for any morality.
[ibid., Chapter 17.][/size]
The statement I made bold is indeed an interpretation: it supposes that error is not blindness, but cowardice, to speak with Nietzsche. So yes, perhaps ‘democratic liberals’ are just blind. Perhaps it depends on the person. In jonquil’s case, it definitely does not seem to be a passive blindness, but what we Dutch call an “East-Indian” blindness: a pretended blindness. I do not know whom jonquil seeks to deceive in the first place: others or herself. As I wrote in another thread:
[size=95] She [jonquil] is a pseudo-liberal, i.e., a self-proclaimed liberal that must, however, appeal to Revelation yet cannot openly do so, as this would expose her to be as ‘bad’ as the conservatives she’s so strongly opposed to!
[list][/size][size=85][I do not] believe that there is anything unbiased about the claim that everyone has a right to his own opinion. This claim (that everyone has such a right) is no less bigoted, unless it is not just another claim or bias, but is an objective moral absolute negating as false all contrary claims. […] Unlike Jaffa, most at Scripps reject any sort of divine or natural objective basis for their liberalism which consequently is nihilist, grounded in nothing but their own bias or whim.
[Neumann, Liberalism, Chapter 33.][/size][size=95]
That jonquil believes in such moral absolutes is evident from, among many others, her idea that a child abuser would need defending (see my Neumann-thread). She is therefore an illiberal who is dishonest about this fact toward others or—what would be much worse philosophically—toward herself.
[http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2178785#p2178785][/size][/list:u]
From the snippet posted I took him to be basically advocating honesty. I can see exactly where Neumann is coming from. From my experiences and observations, especially from being a researcher in the Humanities department, I see examples of this exact dishonesty everyday. They preach that they are right, fighting for justice, but when questioned or disagreed with the questioner in shamed, ridiculed, or to be made guilt ridden. And there is also a seething hatred simmering beneath the surface. If a post-grad student, or even worse a doctor or professor, cannot see the dishonesty in claiming their morality is the only right one, then they shouldn’t be there.
It really makes me laugh when someone repeats the same moral position but in a louder voice, as if that makes them any more right than the first time.
