OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Radical Ideologies

Entry 2220, on 2022-06-04 at 20:28:00 (Rating 3, Philosophy)

In the past, most people trusted experts. They would do what their doctor told them, believe what the news media said, and have some degree of trust in politicians and other leaders. I know that it isn't quite that simple, and that some degree of distrust has always existed, but it seems to me that trust in experts (which I will use as a generic term for these groups of people) isn't what it once was.

The question is why. I have thought about this quite a bit recently and I broadly blamed these professions: teachers, the media, and universities. Of course, politicians and managers are also a major source of problems, but that has always been the case, so I was more interested now in what has changed.

Since then I have further refined my theory and now primarily blame universities as the initial source of the problem, largely due to the invasion of postmodern or relativist thought there. Obviously the degree to which this has occurred varies greatly from one institution to another, amongst departments within the organisation, and between individuals as well, but I think it is a real trend.

In general, this started at American universities, where completely irrational ideologies have taken over to varying degrees, and America is the cultural leader in the Western world, so it is spreading to other countries as well. And amongst the departments within universities the humanities and social "sciences" are the most affected, which is a problem, but not necessarily a significant one since many people are suspicious of subjects like sociology, gender studies, and the like anyway. Unfortunately it is spreading to more important areas like the hard sciences as well, although to a lesser extent.

And the other groups I blamed above tend to have university training, so the problems I saw with teachers and the media, might originate in the education (or indoctrination) they received there. It's interesting that, in the past, journalists often didn't have university training and the media was far less biased. I can't necessarily prove a causative link there, but it is worth considering.

Of course, anyone is perfectly entitled to have any political or philosophical views they want, even if they make no sense and might be personally disadvantageous to themselves. But the problem comes when those views are inflicted on others with little or no balance, and that seems to be what is happening.

In some subject areas in US universities the staff are practically 100% from the left, which makes them more susceptible to this nonsense. To offer some balance, I think people from the right are also susceptible to dangerous and implausible views, but they aren't the source of the particular problem I'm discussing here.

So this phenomenon becomes self-propagating, because graduates from universities espousing this type of ideology are employed in influential jobs including as academics and teachers in other universities where the cycle can continue.

But how did it all start? Well, political and social trends tend to arise for indeterminate reasons and capture the attention of sections in society. As they take hold they are viewed as the "correct" way to think and there is subtle pressure to conform. Even in universities, genuine free thought is rare, and people often just latch on to the latest political trend and rarely question it, at least until the next one comes along.

The word "zeitgeist" refers to the general mood at a particular point in history, and this concept has been around for a significant period of time, so this is nothing new. It's just that the current derangement is particularly harmful because it specifically rejects the primacy, or even the existence, of objective truths.

The concept of there being no completely undeniable facts is not new. Descartes famously claimed that the only thing we know for sure is that we ourselves exist, and the rest could just be an illusion, but this solipsistic idea is pointless, and even if it is technically true, we all act as if it wasn't. I can't prove that a tall building, or the theory of gravity, really exist, but I still wouldn't jump off the top floor to test that. Even if I did, my resulting death could all be part of the illusion!

I do have to emphasise here that I don't object to people holding and discussing odd philosophical beliefs, and they have a perfect right to hold those. I'm sure they might object to the equivalent beliefs I hold, so I'm not saying they shouldn't have them. What I am saying is that we need more balance. If students are exposed to a particular ideology they should also hear the counter-ideologies to that so they understand the reality is more nuanced than they might superficially assume.

But many universities refuse to allow that. Not only are they stacked with staff with extreme leftist views, but they even refuse to allow external speakers in to offer alternatives. The cancelling of speakers from the right is a well established phenomenon around the world. And even speakers with ideologies often associated with university activism, such as feminism, are now being rejected if their ideology contradicts another one which is seen as having higher value, such as trans beliefs. I'm talking about the cancelling of TERFs here, if you didn't get that.

This has reached the extremes of refusing speakers the right to appear based on perceptions of who they are rather than any content of their actual subject. For example, controversial right-wing commentator Don Brash was refused speaking rights in a New Zealand university even though his subject was monetary policy and his time at the Reserve Bank rather than anything related to his activism around race issues here.

Whenever I see a refusal to engage in reasonable debate, or to even hear what an alternative opinion might be, I assume the person rejecting the alternative views is doing that because they know their own views are weak and difficult to defend. In other words, people are cancelled because they are right. And yes, I know absolute right and wrong don't exist according to these philosophical views, but consistency is not a strong point in these people's intellectual repertoire!

If there is one way to guarantee to stifle progress it is to refuse to engage in debate around the truth of existing beliefs and to consider alternatives. When a particular view becomes the only one which is considered appropriate or moral, it generally leads to intellectual stagnation. After all, in the past the "correct" view often included belief in the ethical superiority of slavery, or the divine right of kings, or the supremacy of a particular religion.

And remember that at the time, people would be "cancelled" for questioning these, usually in far more unpleasant ways than today, but we now don't in general believe them any more. All ideas should be open to question, and the correct way to counter a view is not to suppress it, it is to reject it through reasoned debate.

For example, if some neo-Nazis wanted to speak and I was in the audience, instead of stopping them I would just ask awkward questions, like: are they aware of the amazing contribution Jews have made to the world, especially in medicine and science? And I would then point out all the things we wouldn't have without that contribution, and invite them to stop using any technology invented by a Jew, like the Google search engine, or the VOIP technology used in computerised communications, or flexible stents, an important part of surgical procedures, or one of hundreds of other innovations.

That reaction might give them something genuine to think about, just like the KKK members in the US who have been deradicalised after speaking with an intelligent and reasonable black person. And that, I think, is far more likely to produce a change in attitude than just being told to shut up.

So it seems like the radical politically correct cancel culture will destroy itself in the end, because people can detect genuine weakness, especially when it is protected by a refusal to engage in anything which might require some justification. Ironically, having neo-Nazis speak at an institution might be a sign that the institution genuinely cares about fighting radical ideologies, instead of just having one of their own!

Comment 2 (7207) by OJB on 2022-06-08 at 22:02:25: (view earlier comments)

I just see universities as the central place where this hideous ideology originates. Most people who believe it are university "educated". Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to make sense.

Comment 3 (7213) by Anonymous on 2022-06-10 at 12:44:34:

I suspect that Universities, and more specifically, humanities departments are the cradle of the SJW movement. I think to some extent, they always have been. What surprises me is the traction their views now get, and how the radical beliefs have leaked into mainstream life...

Comment 4 (7214) by OJB on 2022-06-10 at 12:59:56:

Yes, that's my basic hypothesis. And, although the issue has always existed, I think it has got a lot worse recently. It's all self-reinforcing: people that were exposed to propaganda during their university "learning" a decade or two back, are now in politics, teaching, management and are reinforcing this view, which as a result becomes even more popular at universities. It's a scary feedback loop!

Comment 5 (7251) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-03 at 19:23:16:

There is good discussion on these issues in Douglas Murray’s book “The War on the West”, well worth reading.

Comment 6 (7252) by OJB on 2022-08-03 at 22:05:26:

Yeah, I’ve read it, along with the Strange Death of Europe, and the Madness of Crowds.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.