I was listening to a debate with Richard Spencer and Jay Dyer, regarding theology, morality and western civilization etc, and Spencer said something to the effect that Christianity places too much regard for truth. This statement about floored me because I have tried to build my worldview around truth, since I believe it is the most valuable 'thing'. So now I am wondering, if truth is not the pinnacle of ones worldview, what is? Even if the premise of ones worldview is not ideally true, they have to put precedent value on truth. For instance, one may put themselves as the pinnacle of their worldview, but they must believe/convince themselves that is a true worldview to have. I cannot speak for what Spencer holds in value higher than truth, so let me argue that it is indeed himself. He argues for a White Ethnostate because he prefers to live around white people, if he valued himself as his highest truth, and he also believes a white ethnostate would be the best place for him to live, that would be consistent with the premise that he values himself (this is not meant to be proof his highest value is himself, I am just illustrating a point). If he could not peaceably construct a white ethnostate, would it be untrue in his worldview to us force to ensure he can create his ethnostate? I will stop there and invite discussion.
Only commenting because I’m truly intrigued but to tired drunk and high to say anything of value - will re visit tomorrow haha Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Hail to the virtues of the self righteous man as he shall dig up his own rewards in blind ignorance touted as faith. In death, all are valued the same.
Truth exists as a category..but so do other self identifications.. So when you think of truth.. you must realize that it is good to the limits of its conjecture.. But after that.. or when you think of something different that particular idea gains weight in your consciousness.. So the question or goal becomes to do justice.. (in a true sense) to each thought.. and act in accordance with it(Tao)..
Could you expound on that, I am not sure I know what you are saying. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Ok.. the concept is called categorical imperative.. It is the true definition of a thing/thought in its abstract and concrete effects.. So when you think of an idea.. it has a certain pull to it.. its level of attrction and fulfillment.. So when you think of an idea like truth for example it tries and carries its own weight categorically.. Its like this.. When you think of a thought it has a certain imperative.. its definition.. and its effects energetically.. So when you think of an idea it has a categorical imperative.. which is the true meaning and association it has..
It was kind of a continuation from my thread about an ethnostate and sent me down this train of thought. Basically some of these alt-righters think ethnicity is so profound of an issue that it trumps reason. They might prefer a white person be their neighbor, who has culturally no connection to them, rather than another ethnicity who is culturally very similar. So rather than assessing somebody by their true individuality they find it more valuable to assess a person based on their ethnicity, disregarding the true nature/character of the person. Which got me thinking why more people dont just make truth their supreme principle... Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That is what got me on that tangent, but then I kind of wondered about it more generally. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Definition of the truth Is where the word and the deed become one . Anything less is a lie ………………………………..