Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Well, I'm not sure I acknowledge it is the case. I'm not sure I acknowledge that atheism discourages reproduction; that is, I'm not sure that it is atheism that discourages reproduction. I seem to recall something like 95% of Catholics practice birth control, so it certainly isn't limited to atheists.

My skepticism isn't putting the cart first so much as it's asking what exactly is pulling the cart. Why are those performing the tests aligning the statistical analysis with atheism per se? The first article you linked tells us very little, if not nothing, and is entirely condescending to atheists. Why can't atheists be committed individuals? Why does one need religion in order to evince honesty or integrity? The idea that religion is the only source of honest behavior is a load of bullshit.

Well there's that writer's speculation as to why, and one can come up with all sorts of reasons, which may represent various levels of bullshit. But one usually has to look outside for critique, and my experience is that atheists seem more likely to keep spewing the ignorant shtick about needing to combat nonexistent "exploding overpopulation" than to critically look at differences in community beliefs and fertility rates. Can't look at differences in fertility rates if you aren't looking at the rates at all. Maybe that in itself is the problem. Progressively inclined religious groups seem to be a little concerned with demographics, but so far have tried to focus on greater evangelism and further watering down of orthodoxy, which is only going to exacerbate the problem. Conversely, various highly orthodox sects on a global perspective are gaining, whether we are referring to Muslims, Jews, or the more "sclerotic" strains of Christianity.

 

[Einherjar86]

But one usually has to look outside for critique, and my experience is that atheists seem more likely to keep spewing the ignorant shtick about needing to combat nonexistent "exploding overpopulation" than to critically look at differences in community beliefs and fertility rates.

This is confusing to me, because you're the one who complains that people keep having children who shouldn't be having children.

There's nothing specific to atheism that discourages its affiliates (or whatever) from having children. If atheists seem to reproduce less than, say, poor families or fanatical religious communities, I would correlate it more to levels of education than anything else. I know educated religious people who abstain from having children because they don't feel financially prepared to do so. So in short, I don't think this means that atheists are opposed to procreation; I just think it means that they're more conscious of when it is appropriate to have children. Which I would think you would approve of.

So ultimately, I'm just confused as to what exactly you're saying.

 

[Dak]

This is confusing to me, because you're the one who complains that people keep having children who shouldn't be having children.

There's nothing specific to atheism that discourages its affiliates (or whatever) from having children. If atheists seem to reproduce less than, say, poor families or fanatical religious communities, I would correlate it more to levels of education than anything else. I know educated religious people who abstain from having children because they don't feel financially prepared to do so. So in short, I don't think this means that atheists are opposed to procreation; I just think it means that they're more conscious of when it is appropriate to have children. Which I would think you would approve of.

So ultimately, I'm just confused as to what exactly you're saying.

This would possibly make sense if wealth didn't generally correlate to education levels. Yet available stats indicate that wealthier families of orthodox sects have more children than their poorer orthodox peers.

One is never really financially/mentally/etc prepared for children, because it will always cause an adjustment in lifestyle even beyond what is anticipated. Those who are truly not "prepared" are too ignorant to think about it. That strata you speak of generally just doesn't want to sacrifice one iota for the burden of children and/or believes a child needs all that bullshit that they are told they need (own room, all the toys, infinite afterschool options, early school, latest brand clothes, etc). Which is part of the problem in need of critique, not the explanation for the problem.

Edit:

D&G, Nietzsche, and the New Right.

http://www.4pt.su/en/content/deleuze-guattari-new-right

 

[rms]

Yet available stats indicate that wealthier families of orthodox sects have more children than their poorer orthodox peers.

I thought the evidence proved the exact opposite of this?

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought the evidence proved the exact opposite of this?

Agreed; and furthermore, I would also venture that statistics in poorer neighborhoods/communities are low anyway since in many cases individuals do not know how many children they've had (this is mostly the case for men, but it can also be the case for women). Parentage often goes undocumented in poorer communities, whereas wealthy families keep track of their ilk.

 

[Dak]

I thought the evidence proved the exact opposite of this?

What evidence? I at least provided something.

Re: tracking parentage: Those welfare mommas and deadbeat dads are irrelevant to the discussion on orthodox vs atheism, regardless of how closely they may or may not track their offspring. Given that there is a financial incentive for the mothers to track their children (or even claim more than they have), I have to call that assertion into serious question despite the irrelevance.

 

[rms]

Evidence globally supports the notion that poorest of society have higher birth rates than the rest, can we agree on that? I have no idea on how to project the orthodox-ness of each social class into a graph, but I would think that global principle would suffice as the evidence for that?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm also not sure I understand why those "welfare mommas and deadbeat dads" (to use Dak's rather crude language) are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, it's important to view education as distinct from the wealth factor: wealth certainly correlates to education, but wealth also makes it easier for families to have children. They could very well still be aware of the fact that they're making an educated decision in having those children, however. There are also wealthy families who send their kids to college for a good education, and those kids end up with decent jobs but not enough to support children of their own.

There are lots of people today with good educations and very little spending money.

 

[Dak]

@RMS: Why should it be assumed that the average hold for a subset?

There's a lack of study on this, but that isn't evidence against it. There's this:

http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/english/pdf/blume2006.pdf

I'm also not sure I understand why those "welfare mommas and deadbeat dads" (to use Dak's rather crude language) are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, it's important to view education as distinct from the wealth factor: wealth certainly correlates to education, but wealth also makes it easier for families to have children. They could very well still be aware of the fact that they're making an educated decision in having those children, however. There are also wealthy families who send their kids to college for a good education, and those kids end up with decent jobs but not enough to support children of their own.

There are lots of people today with good educations and very little spending money.

The male you describe is by definition a deadbeat dad. Welfare momma might be crude but it is an existing thing, and there are tons of them in the areas I grew up and lived in.

From the pdf I linked:

The unique circumstances of German social and family politics (as of 2002) must, however, be
taken into consideration in analyzing this data. Having children increases a household’s income via
subsidies (education and child subsidies, in some cases welfare, housing subsidies, etc.) that can
increase low incomes especially significantly. On the other hand, having children frequently
demands the sacrifice of professional chances as well as opportunities for income (especially on the
part of the mother).
Thus, the low values in the lowest and highest income brackets are partially influenced by the
subsidies that raise the incomes of poor parents and by the sacrificed opportunities that lower the
incomes of wealthy parents. As a result, respondents with more children and with greater religiosity
are concentrated in the middle income brackets.

The group with by far the highest proportion (45.8%) of respondents who characterized themselves
as non-religious is not the most affluent but the poorest (less than €1,000 monthly household
income). On the other hand, the highest income groups have on average fewer children and the
lowest proportion of respondents who characterized themselves as “very religious.” This indicates
that affluent parents in Germany are forced to choose between children and affluence – and that
religious parents opt with higher-than-average frequency for more children to the detriment of their
income opportunities.

Interesting note from the guy doing this research: His work is following a hypothesis from Hayek. Go figure.

 

[Einherjar86]

On the other hand, the highest income groups have on average fewer children and the lowest proportion of respondents who characterized themselves as “very religious.”

I may be confused, but that comment seems to contrast with this one:

This would possibly make sense if wealth didn't generally correlate to education levels. Yet available stats indicate that wealthier families of orthodox sects have more children than their poorer orthodox peers.

 

[Einherjar86]

Edit:

D&G, Nietzsche, and the New Right.

http://www.4pt.su/en/content/deleuze-guattari-new-right

I just noticed this.

Overall, it's a simplification of every French "postmodernist" (ugh) philosopher it names with the exception of Deleuze; it doesn't even do great service to Guattari. However, I think the treatment of Deleuze is mostly fair. He's a politically complex individual, but the author doesn't consider the cold, hard fact that Deleuze did identify as a Marxist. In fact, when he died he was in the process of writing a book called The Grandeur of Marx. Of course, this doesn't mean he isn't assimilable to rightist practices or politics; but I think the author is misguided if he wants to attribute a kind of repressed rightism in Deleuze's work - if not for any other point except that Deleuze would oppose applying Freudian psychoanalytic terms to his work.

My biggest concern, or wariness, would be in any attempt to salvage something like humanist values for a "New Right" conservative movement. The right is, and always has been, staunchly humanist (so has the left, if we're being honest - Deleuze would have identified with neither). I think it's inappropriate to extract humanist values from a philosophy that's cited as inspiring the field of neocybernetics. Deleuze's philosophy is one of systems, organisms (as opposed to subjects), and networks.

There seems to be a trend lately (since Land's misdirection) to appropriate poststructuralist philosophers for "New Right" or NRx purposes. Until those institutions forfeit conservative swagger and religious monism (if not fundamentalism) they'll never succeed in absorbing the French philosophy of the '60s and '70s.

Also, last point: the guy does a major disservice to Baudrillard by calling his philosophy little more than a reaction to Reagan's America. There's a far more complex epistemological/ontological strand in Baudrillard's thinking, despite the fact that he waded at length in cultural critique.

 

[Dak]

I may be confused, but that comment seems to contrast with this one:

The chart itself is pretty clear though, as is this:

As a result, respondents with more children and with greater religiosity
are concentrated in the middle income brackets.

Between the handful of charts in that pdf you can see that the religious have more children than the non-religious, and that the "religious" and "very religious" are heavily clustered in the middle income brackets. The least religious are the poorest, and the least religious have less children. Thus the assertion.

I just noticed this.

Overall, it's a simplification of every French "postmodernist" (ugh) philosopher it names with the exception of Deleuze; it doesn't even do great service to Guattari. However, I think the treatment of Deleuze is mostly fair. He's a politically complex individual, but the author doesn't consider the cold, hard fact that Deleuze did identify as a Marxist. In fact, when he died he was in the process of writing a book called The Grandeur of Marx. Of course, this doesn't mean he isn't assimilable to rightist practices or politics; but I think the author is misguided if he wants to attribute a kind of repressed rightism in Deleuze's work - if not for any other point except that Deleuze would oppose applying Freudian psychoanalytic terms to his work.

My biggest concern, or wariness, would be in any attempt to salvage something like humanist values for a "New Right" conservative movement. The right is, and always has been, staunchly humanist (so has the left, if we're being honest - Deleuze would have identified with neither). I think it's inappropriate to extract humanist values from a philosophy that's cited as inspiring the field of neocybernetics. Deleuze's philosophy is one of systems, organisms (as opposed to subjects), and networks.

There seems to be a trend lately (since Land's misdirection) to appropriate poststructuralist philosophers for "New Right" or NRx purposes. Until those institutions forfeit conservative swagger and religious monism (if not fundamentalism) they'll never succeed in absorbing the French philosophy of the '60s and '70s.

Also, last point: the guy does a major disservice to Baudrillard by calling his philosophy little more than a reaction to Reagan's America. There's a far more complex epistemological/ontological strand in Baudrillard's thinking, despite the fact that he waded at length in cultural critique.

Well any writing that short is going to have to be a simplification (btw that bit on Baudrillard was a description of how the author was interpreted for assimilation by liberal Academia). I think the important lynchpin for that authors interpretation of D&G is tying in "Nietzsche", because Nietzsche gives a superficial appearance of "anything goes" but he is so very conservative. It should be obvious (by now anyway) that whether or not (Guattari especially) was writing from a Marxist perspective, the writings have an appeal to some non-Marxists and it does not necessary follow that a workers utopia in the marxist tradition must follow the self-destruction of "Cathedral-capitalism".

The New Right critique is that the current system will self-destruct, and the D&G can be worked into the critique portion quite easily. Depending on which area of the New or "alt" right you look at, they may or may not be kept around for "what comes after", but they don't have to be.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thus the assertion.

Point taken.

Well any writing that short is going to have to be a simplification (btw that bit on Baudrillard was a description of how the author was interpreted for assimilation by liberal Academia).

I see that now. The author of the piece doesn't do much to rectify that though - although JB isn't his primary concern.

I think the important lynchpin for that authors interpretation of D&G is tying in "Nietzsche", because Nietzsche gives a superficial appearance of "anything goes" but he is so very conservative. It should be obvious (by now anyway) that whether or not (Guattari especially) was writing from a Marxist perspective, the writings have an appeal to some non-Marxists and it does not necessary follow that a workers utopia in the marxist tradition must follow the self-destruction of "Cathedral-capitalism".

It seems erroneous to describe Nietzsche as a conservative. Like most good philosophers, he doesn't really fit into any category.

The New Right critique is that the current system will self-destruct, and the D&G can be worked into the critique portion quite easily.

Then the "critique" aspect of the New Right is basically the same as any general Marxist.

 

[Dak]

I see that now. The author of the piece doesn't do much to rectify that though - although JB isn't his primary concern.

Yeah he runs through the list of the usual suspects including Foucault, Baudrillard, and Derrida, and doesn't even really need to and doesn't tie them in other than tangentially related to D&G.

It seems erroneous to describe Nietzsche as a conservative. Like most good philosophers, he doesn't really fit into any category.

Well he isn't conservative in the "conservakin" sense that we are familiar with in America. He also isn't conservative in a strictly old-reaction or monarchic sense. But this Nietzsche class has been at a very interesting juncture and allowed me to move past my initial focus which was only on the critiques primarily on Christianity. He has a very thinly veiled appreciation for hierarchy, historical gender relations (patriarchy!), etc. Nietzschean critique of liberalism and Christianity weaves in perfectly with the Yarvinian analysis of the Cathedral. I would even say he pretty much just updated Nietzsche's critique to describe the modern structure of liberalism, while keeping the Christian-origin story etc.

Then the "critique" aspect of the New Right is basically the same as any general Marxist.

Not entirely. There is a significantly different perspective on economic law (Hayek and Mises are much more likely to be referred to than Marx). The primary intersectionality is in that business and the state are quite intertwined.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well he isn't conservative in the "conservakin" sense that we are familiar with in America. He also isn't conservative in a strictly old-reaction or monarchic sense. But this Nietzsche class has been at a very interesting juncture and allowed me to move past my initial focus which was only on the critiques primarily on Christianity. He has a very thinly veiled appreciation for hierarchy, historical gender relations (patriarchy!), etc. Nietzschean critique of liberalism and Christianity weaves in perfectly with the Yarvinian analysis of the Cathedral. I would even say he pretty much just updated Nietzsche's critique to describe the modern structure of liberalism, while keeping the Christian-origin story etc.

Most scholars see these as inconsistencies in Nietzsche's philosophy, despite Deleuze's attempt to paint a holistic picture of Nietzsche. He was a vocal misogynist but was a critic of patriarchal language and hierarchy (a la The Genealogy of Morals); his treatment of women was ultimately objectifying, but he also deconstructed the dominant, rational, Enlightenment subject.

Deleuze also wasn't the only poststructuralist into Nietzsche. Foucault wrote about him a lot, as did Baudrillard. In a way, Nietzsche was the first deconstructionist.

So, in short, I find his more vocal and superficial misogynist and hierarchical moves to be symptomatic of cultural ideology, while the nuances of his philosophy expose his underlying critical mind - and that these two things are basically in contradistinction to one another. Good ol' doublethink.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Einherjar can you explain to me why it is good or fair that the sins of the European Empires are played up and vocalized but the greater chain of events that they were part of be either ignored or only brought up to counter notions of white supremacy? Why were the mongols misunderstood noble savages but the nazis evil incarnate?

 

[Dak]

Most scholars see these as inconsistencies in Nietzsche's philosophy, despite Deleuze's attempt to paint a holistic picture of Nietzsche. He was a vocal misogynist but was a critic of patriarchal language and hierarchy (a la The Genealogy of Morals); his treatment of women was ultimately objectifying, but he also deconstructed the dominant, rational, Enlightenment subject.

Deleuze also wasn't the only poststructuralist into Nietzsche. Foucault wrote about him a lot, as did Baudrillard. In a way, Nietzsche was the first deconstructionist.

So, in short, I find his more vocal and superficial misogynist and hierarchical moves to be symptomatic of cultural ideology, while the nuances of his philosophy expose his underlying critical mind - and that these two things are basically in contradistinction to one another. Good ol' doublethink.

The criticisms are of the democratic ideal of "man" and "woman" or woman as becoming under enlightenment more like the terrible thing that man has already become. Thus while it is possible to interpret his writings as inconsistent, that appears quite wishful. Feminism is inextricable from the enlightenment subject and falls under the "withering gaze" of Nietzschean criticism.

In true conservative style concerning the relation of the sexes, Nietzsche writes that power inherent in each sex respectively is in their traditional and different suits. Liberalism, to include feminism, moves both men and women towards a middle which renders both impotent in all senses of the word.

Nietzsche recognized the dispensing with god had a lot of "unintended consequences" that had yet to be recognized and/or accepted - hence the "Madman":

“The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him--you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?

It would appear that the mass of humanity is in fact plunging continually, having "unchained from the sun", even if the sun is/were merely illusory. We will not offer our seed to the void, and so a bridge beyond the void must be postulated for humanity. Of course one doesn't have to value humanity, but the creation of values precedes law and argument, and the most basic act of human creation is in procreation. Value creation which places procreation (successful procreation, as in procreation which procreates and values procreation) as the prime directive, appears as such a positive forceful feedback loop that it overwhelms, in time, competing values, arguments, and laws.

 

[Einherjar86]

Are you saying that Nietzsche isn't offering a transvaluation of values so much as he is simply inaugurating some new kind hierarchical system? I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

this type of shit is infuriating



this is even better

 

[Mort Divine]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the first one.

Second one is stupid I'll give you that.