This is a rant.  So sue me.

We have gained so much in modern liberalism.  And, we have lost our balls.

We have indeed.  We’ve lost our guts, we’ve lost our ability to hit back.  We’re suddenly an anonymous cloud of Mac-using, latte sipping intellectuals with no basis for our “arguments”, if you can call them that.  Undeniable and intangible all at once.  Don’t like mildly controversial writers?  Move on to another blog.  Still with me?  Then indulge me for a moment.

Have you ever tried to have an argument with an individual who was educated, modern, intelligent – and had just not a shred of philosophical backing to their beliefs?  Because that is actually the age we’re living in.

I am biased because I was raised in a religious cult, one where learning to argue and convince another was of superlative importance.  In a cult, when you’re trying to convert someone, it is not enough to just assume your opponent’s background.  You have to comprehend the entire foundation your theories rest on.  You need details.  You need an ontology.  Ayn Rand said this well, to the effect that philosophies and practices are hierarchical; the foundation is critical.

But in most modern liberal conversations today (and I can only speak as a Western, English speaking person I suppose – but bear with me), this is an important missing element.  I have had classes where a Professor assumed the “rightness” of their postmodern anti-imperialist ethics, without even A) acknowledging the other side’s arguments, even in a tacit way, and B) without explicating the ethics behind said opinions.

A good example of this was the Israeli response to Hamas aggression in 2009-10.   In all conversations I can recall about this, not *one* ever got down to the real nitty gritty:  what is the rational foundation behind defense?  Should we take Nietzsche seriously?  Is peaceful protection of power ethically immoral?  How about violent protection when warranted?

And how about the 64K question – if we are liberal Atheists, and we (more or less) believe life and perhaps even consciousness are a kind of cosmic accident – then what is the real significance of human suffering and experiences?

Now, to be sure, there are a slew of answers to these questions.  I have my own opinions.  It’s not that I think we should only argue and not act, either.  My point is, these baseline-level questions just never get asked, outside of a Philosophy class, or a few weirdos (like myself) smoking up and asking them.

But modern liberalism faces a dilemma it practically created, and I suppose refuses to acknowledge – God is dead.  Relativism IS reality, perception IS reality; what then, of public discourse around what should or should not be Done?  Whether at the Micro (personal) or Macro (national) level?

In modern discussions of Race and Gender, of equal treatment, of “Rights” that are based on Government handing them to us – or conveniently taking them away – where are the discussions on the legitimacy of what one believes?  How about a discussion on Fairness in terms of Evolutionary theory? Are genes “fair”?  Do most Atheist liberals accept that life is a kind of accident?  Or do they feel that problems like that are a free lunch, let science figure it out, and we move on to our identity kin-groups and our utopianistic fantasies of being “right” about ‘stuff’…where does this go?

If we were really religious about being liberal – and smarter about it – maybe we would get this, deep down.  Argument is a cold dead fish without the water of Philosophical/Ethical concepts, perhaps even a worldview, in which for it to swim.  But an explicit one.  Not merely a wishy-washy, neo-liberal, Western- forgetful fantasy of life and history.

What is the role of capitalism in University research?  Is it justified?  How about the new and under-discussed issue of the military and University research, the funding that is directed there?

God is dead – we were dropped here on our heads – so goes the story, if you believe many scientists and physicists, sort of our new Secular priesthood.  Are casual liberal intellectuals not aware of these guys?  Or is it they are too bored by these problems to take notice?  Because from a Nietzschean point of view, it is a combination of bizarre and hilarious that liberals can argue without referring back to this state of affairs; that these important decisions we’re making about technology, capitalism, democracy, warfare, are ultimately based on an accident.

I’m not even saying that I personally believe that, per se.  But it’s in the ether; it has been for a long time, underlying the academy and the sciences, which are hierarchically regimented in distinction to, say, economics.  In other words, push comes to shove – it’d be difficult for an intellectual to disagree that Gravity is not infinitely more fundamental, and important – than say, Paul Krugman’s latest interpretation of the Stock Market.  One is just better proved than the other, period.

I can’t help but feel there is a comfort zone in which Western liberal intellectuals all too easily get caught – blame it on A) lack of a hardcore religious upbringing, and B) the comfortable life that money and Western privilege can provide.  Nice parents, nice houses, enough money, good choice of colleges – these things are great, but they signal Death for the mind.

So let’s be clear, good friends, my brothers and sisters – after the Death of God, and after Nietzsche, after Sartre and Camus – there are no more objective ethics.  We who are proudly Godless – let us not argue with others as though our beliefs are not subject to debate and refinement.

It actually staggers me to hear liberals debating amongst themselves on stations like NPR or PBS, without once commenting on relativism.  Not that there aren’t important nuances to understanding it – and also not to say that ethics are defunct because of it – but nevertheless, it is almost a silent ghost.

Relativism in modern liberal conversation is the smoking gun.

It is the elephant in the room.

And as a passionate lover of Philosophy and Knowledge, this enrages me; because I feel in my bones our discussions could be that much broader.  That much more salient.

That much more ACCURATE, in terms of reflecting where we really are in the Post-modern digital age.

I would call myself a liberal-leaning libertarian; but make no mistake, I feel that conservatives, with a generally more religious component, comprehend this far better.  They might even be better debaters, debaters with a purpose, then most liberal intellectuals.  I feel more commonality with conservatives often than liberals for this reason, even if I disagree with the content oftentimes of what they believe in.

How important this really is in the grand scheme of things, I suppose I don’t know.  So much in our world has evolved, technology, science, positive ways of dealing with one another in a pluralistic environment.  I’d like to see our public discourse evolve and not leave behind this important element that religion brought to the table.

It’s not enough to just state something, just because other people and you have a consensus at your local Cafe or a million Cafe’s, via the internet, whatever.  You need to ground yourself if you want your beliefs to be something that other people ought to take seriously, whether or not they choose to being ultimately up to them.