“Nature’s indifference is the hardest pill to swallow for modern/postmodern liberals.”
I always thought it was the conservatives and traditionalists who had a problem swallowing that pill. The post-modern era is distinguished most by its secularism and scientism, while conservativism has ideological origins in theology and religion. It’s the conservative state that fears the fact that there is no god, no ‘right way’ to be or govern a society, and no god-given privilege to rule. It was these very assumptions that gave the beginnings of the conservative state its force.
Just how severe this indifference is can be stated by using the Nazi’s as an ironic example. As social darwinists, they acknowledged the harsh truth of might makes right. But nature doesn’t care about that, either. That is to say, nature is so indifferent it doesn’t matter if the strongest survive.
I thought that all changed with Sam Harris‘ “the moral landscape“? Even Richard Dawkins, who formerly said nature was indifferent, came around to Sam Harris‘ way of thinking.
The conservatives and the liberals both have counts against them because the conservatives are hypocritical sexual moralists without grace, and the liberals are hypocritical social justice warriors without grace.
They need to join forces on their strong points and add grace to it.
But how are they gonna do that if they keep saying nature/Nature is indifferent and they don’t even know what/Who they’re talking about?
If we don’t return to the original intelligence, the original intelligence is going to return to us, very far from indifferent…and we ain’t gonna be ready for it.
Oh yes, the west is collapsing and this is furthered by the tens of millions of non-western migrants (mostly Muslims and Africans) flooding into the west and out-breeding the europeans
MY moderated response is…
I strongly disagree with your perspective and behavior. I don’t believe your mindset is conducive to a positive future. It would be best if people with such views reconsidered passing them on to the next generation.
You believe in consent structures and respecting consents that respect consents. The more they are violated, the more you reflect you believe in them. You don’t believe in consent violation, although you know it exists. You don’t trust it. You trust mutual consent respect, even though (and because) you see evidence of its privation (and so, its wholeness, the eternal Trinity) all around you.