The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So no you haven't read Hitchens?

I think he was intimated by some of the names you mentioned.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I think he was intimated by some of the names you mentioned.

I have been very intimate with some of those names, yes. Mmm.

[Itse]

I got to go with Peter12 here.

Hitchens was not a bad writer, but a genius who will be remembered for thousands of years? I'll be surprised if he's not mostly forgotten within my lifetime. And I don't even expect to live that long.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

I got to go with Peter12 here.

Hitchens was not a bad writer, but a genius who will be remembered for thousands of years? I'll be surprised if he's not mostly forgotten within my lifetime. And I don't even expect to live that long.

His brother routinely mocks the Hitchens memorial fan club.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Itse

I got to go with Peter12 here.

Hitchens was not a bad writer, but a genius who will be remembered for thousands of years? I'll be surprised if he's not mostly forgotten within my lifetime. And I don't even expect to live that long.

I said Chomsky will be... I have a feeling the semantics and meaning of what I said aren't actually being read fully. I said Hitchens was a visionary, which I believe he was, yet no one actually comprehended why or responded logically.

CP, read more.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I said Chomsky will be... I have a feeling the semantics and meaning of what I said aren't actually being read fully.

Chomsky is pretty great, especially in the linguistics field. It is sad that people only know him through his political writings, which are kind of all over the place.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I said Chomsky will be... I have a feeling the semantics and meaning of what I said aren't actually being read fully. I said Hitchens was a visionary, which I believe he was, yet no one actually comprehended why or responded logically.

CP, read more.

David Bentley Hart - a philosopher and religious historian - had this to say about "God is not Great."

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples.

He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero).

He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).

https://www.firstthings.com/article/...ieve-it-or-not

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Have you read much Hitchens? I suggest you do. His assessment if Islam was brilliant and way ahead of his time.

He was more than 10 years ahead of everyone in predicting the current religious tensions created by radical Islam, he was a visionary and a genius that could analyze geopolitics with objectivity. More than Dawkins, Hawking or Einstein was he able to asses the true influencing factors in the world.

The only comparable is Chomsky imo, another notable visionary and objectivist. His analysis of the relationship between money, influence and legislation will be around for thousands of years.

Uhhh Huntington was on to the cultural clash between Islam and the West long before Hitchens was.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I said Chomsky will be...

Sorry, my bad.

I have a feeling the semantics and meaning of what I said aren't actually being read fully. I said Hitchens was a visionary, which I believe he was, yet no one actually comprehended why or responded logically.

CP, read more.

Well "visionary" is pretty much an opinion, what's there to say. I don't recall ever reading anything by him that seemed particularly visionary, especially his writings about Islam.

Chomsky is quite excellent, but thousands of years? That's just a crazy prediction to make about anybody, and Chomsky?

Sure, he's a well-recognized linguist, but in thousands of years our language will have changed so much that he will mostly be remembed academically, if that.

As for his other stuff, I never considered "Manufacturing consent" for example to be particularly brilliant or visionary. Here's a lengthy review (not by me, but I happen to like this review) for those interested.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I said Chomsky will be... I have a feeling the semantics and meaning of what I said aren't actually being read fully. I said Hitchens was a visionary, which I believe he was, yet no one actually comprehended why or responded logically.

CP, read more.

Nobody responded "logically" to your post because it came off like the 1st year university student coming into psychology class and talking about how significant Freud was.

Point being: yeah, we're all aware.

I've extensively read Hitchens, that's why I've brought him up multiple times in multiple threads (including in this thread) - because I love his writing. A visionary? No, not really, but an incendiary master of language and debate, absolutely.

Chomsky is great. Einstein and Hawking - we're past the point if hyping then, no? They have a well-established reputation. Dawkins? kind of an idiot.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Interesting correlation to the fact that this is the least Christian generation in Western history, and perhaps, adding some questions as to whether or not liberal humanism can stand on its own merits. Everyone here knows that I obviously do not believe it can

Thor asked you to expand on this, and I will too.

What is liberal humanism incapable/insufficient of replacing?
Perhaps a link to a previous thread would be sufficient, I don't count myself as among "everyone."

I (think I) understand and agree with your position regarding the importance of social constructs for individuals to orient themselves and communities to regulate themselves - but I don't understand your criticism of liberal humanism.

Is it reactive and insufficient as a worldview? (Like feminism or anti-theism)

Is it too limited as a worldview, like emergency generators in a hospital, that need to quickly enhanced to be reliable?

Liberal humanism, to me, is self-evident to the extent it's ubiquitous. Maybe I'm not appreciating your use of the phrase. Perhaps I could get a link to a previous thread on the topic - I'm not among the crowd that is familiar with the nuances of your stance.

[CliffFletcher]

Chomsky (and I'm talking about his political activism, not his work in linguisitcs) is about the most dogmatic and narrow-minded intellectual alive today. Has he changed his mind about anything, or recognized any nuance, since 1968?

He's almost single-handedly responsible for fostering the notion among college-aged North Americans that the only aspect of foreign affairs they should take any interest in is the misdeeds of the U.S., and entrenching the 60s myth that the modern West is utterly broken and the worst thing on the world. He's a utopian anarchist who can't even carry on a rational debate without insulting his opponent. He's everything that's wrong with modern political academia.

I get that college undergraduates are prone to fall under the spell of gurus who take it to the man. But it's alarming how many of those undergraduates never mature past the 'bad-daddy' stage when they grow up, and continue to fawn over unshakably anti-Western radicals like Chomsky.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Chomsky (and I'm talking about his political activism, not his work in linguisitcs) is about the most dogmatic and narrow-minded intellectual alive today. Has he changed his mind about anything, or recognized any nuance, since 1968?

He's almost single-handedly responsible for fostering the notion among college-aged North Americans that the only aspect of foreign affairs they should take any interest in is the misdeeds of the U.S., and entrenching the 60s myth that the modern West is utterly broken and the worst thing on the world. He's a utopian anarchist who can't even carry on a rational debate without insulting his opponent. He's everything that's wrong with modern political academia.

I get that college undergraduates are prone to fall under the spell of gurus who take it to the man. But it's alarming how many of those undergraduates never mature past the 'bad-daddy' stage when they grow up, and continue to fawn over unshakably anti-Western radicals like Chomsky.

Chomsky's had some good lectures regarding the decline of organized labour in the U.S. and its effect on quality of life metrics in comparison to some European countries but I can do without most of his foreign policy analysis.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Chomsky (and I'm talking about his political activism, not his work in linguisitcs) is about the most dogmatic and narrow-minded intellectual alive today. Has he changed his mind about anything, or recognized any nuance, since 1968?

He's almost single-handedly responsible for fostering the notion among college-aged North Americans that the only aspect of foreign affairs they should take any interest in is the misdeeds of the U.S., and entrenching the 60s myth that the modern West is utterly broken and the worst thing on the world. He's a utopian anarchist who can't even carry on a rational debate without insulting his opponent. He's everything that's wrong with modern political academia.

I get that college undergraduates are prone to fall under the spell of gurus who take it to the man. But it's alarming how many of those undergraduates never mature past the 'bad-daddy' stage when they grow up, and continue to fawn over unshakably anti-Western radicals like Chomsky.

Ad hominem

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ad hominem

Yeah, don't expect any specifics.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

...He's everything that's wrong with modern political academia. ...

Agree 100%. It is so easy to be against everything and spit sarcastic hatred right, left and centre, while enjoying the lifestyle supported by fat book royalties and speaking arrangement fees. Yet, the sheer possibility of these guru existence and comfort can only be afforded by the very regime they publicly denounce and hate so much. Donate all of your money to labour movement and go live in a barrel, like Diogenes, then, maybe, your message becomes a bit more sincere.

[Agamemnon]

Strange how some pretty intellectually enlightened folks are still engaging in obvious subjective drive-by's in this thread. One poster is trying to have a serious conversation, and the others who should be qualified to debate him are resorting to essentially high-level name calling, condescension and dismissiveness.

Still interesting to read, would be better if the debate was actually... happening... maybe I'm just frustrated in that I can't seem to find the debate this thread promised, too many folks seem to be intentionally obfuscating.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

...
Still interesting to read, would be better if the debate was actually... happening... maybe I'm just frustrated in that I can't seem to find the debate this thread promised, too many folks seem to be intentionally obfuscating.

There is not much to debate here, really. Liberalism fails to deal with Islam because it is based on liberal values, while Islam is based on interpretation of religious beliefs. The more radical the interpretation, the more futile and pointless is Liberalism's effort to confront it. Side effect is Liberalism's tendency to appease and accommodate the most intolerant and illiberal.

On the other hand, some comments are interesting to discuss or comment on regardless of their relevancy to the OP question.

[peter12]

What is liberal humanism incapable/insufficient of replacing?
Perhaps a link to a previous thread would be sufficient, I don't count myself as among "everyone."

Liberal humanism was birthed through the writings of early Protestant humanists, such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and many others. Kierkegaard, also, left some pretty important ideas behind about how anxious humans are in a state of continual freedom.

Removing the necessary Christian architecture, and its accompanying virtues has hollowed it out to a position based exclusively on scientific rationalism, but without the accompanying injection of Protestant skepticism.

It could now be summed up as a blithe belief in progress but without a necessary teleology. What are we progressing towards? There is a reason why so many humanists are also transhumanists. Of course, given that humanism is supposed to be a celebration of being human, it has lead to some interesting cleavages within the movement.

Nietzsche was certain that it would not survive the death of Christianity. Given some of the trends we are seeing unfold, I think he was right.

[afc wimbledon]

I think you guys are missing the point, the rise of humanism and the loss of faith isn't the cause, it's part of the symptom.

People are better educated, love in a world of scientific marvels, we don't want, maybe don't need 'God' anymore. We live on a culture of hedonism, the last thing we want is to be told we can't enjoy the fruits of our modern world, the massive amounts of food, TV, Internet porn etc.