When it comes to the topic of "left" politics, I think that the most true, pure, shining definition, the one that many self-proclaimed leftists forget, is that the left represents "Opposing authoritarianism".
The right represents authoritarianism. In its most pure form, the most utterly right concept is to value and respect morals, tradition, governments, states, and other social norms.
These things do not exist. It is pure indoctrination.
All values that you are talking about, be it SJW morals, or Christian morals, or Islamic morals, nazi morals, or even your own morals and beliefs, are completely bullshit in every way.
The only thing we can be sure of is "Cogito ergo sum", and all your talk about morals, law, states, supply or demand, is bullshit.
These concepts exist as abstractions of people's subjective view of reality, and their subjective opinions on reality. What you call moral, another person calls trash.
That's just how it is, and you trying to be so self-righteous as to be "anti-left", is absurd. Both left and right are absurd concepts.
The only concept that can be admitted, is the concept that all of these ideas, political, religious, social, and even economic ideas, are all completely made up, and have no truth to them at all.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, but how do you define authoritarianism if you think the Left is against it? I'm not sure if I understand the rest of what you wrote, the only thing you are sure of is "I think therefore, I am", so that means that rational thought is bullshit? Also, according to whatever you believe, can you explain to me why rape, murder, theft, etc is wrong or if you think it is not wrong, could you explain why? Anyway, there was no argument in anything you wrote, try again please.
Yes, rational thought is not rational.
I don't think most people who call themselves rational are fully rational.
Human logic is often VERY flawed, to the point where logic itself feels shallow.
Accepting the universe as it is seems more logical, than to try to be logical, especially concerning society or politics. Logic works best when applied to physics or chemistry.
Rape, murder, theft, etc, is not wrong. To find out why, check out this article I wrote yesterday. https://steemit.com/morality/@heretickitten/objective-morality-is-a-fabrication-you-need-to-invent-your-own-moral-code-and-be-aware-that-you-made-it-up-there-is-no-truth-to
I'm not a troll, I'm just harshly poetic with words. But I responded to you because what you said is brilliant.
I don't think you're at all on the wrong path. I just think you need to go further. If you're committed to honor, love, justice, and truth, then we're on the same team.
Oh, and I define authoritarianism as the concept that you are not in control of yourself.
If you feel compelled to act a certain way by an outside source, you are no longer in control. Many of these outside sources are not quite authoritarian, but many are, in subtle, complex ways.
Religions, society itself, and most certainly governments, are all very authoritarian.
Not only that, but moral codes, ethical codes, social norms, and other common behavior, including language itself, and what words are available to use freely, are authoritarian in nature, because having them or not having them alters our behavior.
If our behavior is a person walking in a straight line, each aspect of authoritarianism shoves that person in another direction.
In the real world, most leftism IS authoritarianism, and is therefor "right", not left.
For leftism to have a useful meaning, it needs to be against authoritarianism, while rightism must be for authoritarianism, which does include subjectively good things like law and order.
The only reason leftism looks like trash is because it attracts many punky "rebels", who end up growing up and becoming rightists. Only their rightism is concealed because they call themselves left. Only as a label.
True leftism is always pro-freedom, and anti-authoritarian.
Seeing left or right as good or evil is the weakness.
You must see each idea as it truly is, without the labels or bullshit.
Wisdom is understanding both sides of a subjective ideal, and realizing that neither side is objectively good or true.
I read your article. Animals commit rape, murder, theft, etc. all the time in nature by the definition that we human beings give to those words. This is pretty obvious, and considering that human beings are also part of nature, in a purely biological sense, we are animals. However, human beings are the only animals that are capable of empathy, which is why human beings are the only animals who are capable of rape, murder, theft, etc. Evil (intentionally causing suffering unnecessarily) is an offshoot of empathy, if I know what hurts me, I know what will hurt you. A lion may attack you, eat you while you're still alive, and kill you slowly, but you can't call this evil, the lion is just eating. If a human being was to do the same action, it is evil, because he or she knows what he or she is doing, the human being can imagine the suffering he or she is causing because he or she can imagine it being done to him or her.
Also, I noticed in your article that you included things like cheating as part of immoral acts. This is not really the case. In the case of cheating, it is a breach of a contract between partners, it is not immoral as it is unaesthetic. The only immoral acts are those committed against the self-ownership of another. If I were to punch myself in the face, it is not evil because no one has a higher claim to my body and life than me because no one can literally use my body and life but me. Someone can threaten me and force me to do something, but ultimately the only one that can control my body and life is me. The immoral act if someone was to threaten me to force me to do something, is the threat and the actions of the other person. He or she is attempting to control something through force that he or she has no claim to.
If two partners are in a relationship, they have a contract between them of what is expected out of the relationship. If one of the partners was to decide to cancel the contract, all that needs to be done is to cancel the contract (basically just saying I don’t agree to this deal anymore, we need to renegotiate or part ways). If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract.
"If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract."
I'd call that immoral, according to my moral code.
The fact that you disagree means that your moral code is different.
Because I've seen evidence that people often perpetually disagree on right/wrong, I'll say that neither of us is objective right.
Your moral code is made up by you, and mine is made up by me.
That's why you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you.
Nothing is wrong with this.
It just means that morality is subjective.
A human being eating/ killing a chicken is not the same as a human being eating/ killing another human being because of what makes us different from a chicken, empathy. Since human beings are the only animals capable of this, they are able to reciprocate morality for each other, treat someone the way you want to be treated or at least don't treat someone in a way that causes suffering. I may be able to do this for an animal, but an animal is incapable of reciprocating. Like it or not, in a purely objective sense, the lives of human beings are more valuable than the lives of other animals because human beings are capable of morality, other animals are not. You are arguing that morality is not universal, but the only morality is that which is universal. Like you said, some cultures may believe that eating other animals is wrong or even that eating certain plants is wrong (Jainism), however ALL of those cultures would agree that killing a human being is wrong, that makes this universal. I believe what you are calling your moral code are your values (not saying there is anything wrong with living according to your values), true morality is always universal.
People don't go to war, governments do. If 99 percent of people thought murder was OK, it would still be immoral. Are you saying what is right and wrong depends on how many people agree with you? I don't think a bird spends it's life dreaming of the slaughterhouse or of anything else, it isn't capable of it. It obviously experiences pain, if you think it's wrong to eat a chicken, don't eat the chicken, that's between you and the chicken, it has nothing to do with me or any other person.
Have you heard of the political compass? The left and right are not essentially authoritarian or not, either can be either. https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Cogito ergo sum is not enough at all. The presence of other people matters, if you look at primatology you can see that it's not just indoctrination. So perhaps we should add Nos itaque sumus. "Made up" doesn't make things unreal, it just makes them changeable. The tangible isn't the only realm.
I agree that this author is far too self righteous, and ironically this is essentially and ideological diatribe.
I've heard of the political compass, but I don't agree with it, at least not in this context.
Instead, I've created my own version of it, one that suits me as an "anarchist vs the concept of the state", rather than defaulting towards "which type of statism do I prefer?"
My version uses the scale of "anarchic" to "authoritarian", to suggest that level of control is more important than policies put into place.
To me, cogito ergo sum is the bootstrap code for developing a philosophy.
It's the first step, but beyond that, you must grow and grow, and find out what makes sense to you as a being. And if you accept yourself as part of a community or society, you can add that to your collection of philosophies as well.
Perhaps instead you have discovered a third dimension to it.
Oh my, that sounds much more true.
How interesting.