Comments by "Ivan Engel" (@ivanengel8887) on "Uncle Seth: Light Person Extraordinaire Insults Our Listeners!" video.

  1. I got the Nous, and the example Uncle Seth gives of rules being different for different people already exists and is called "economia" and personalism (kings being the ultimate arbiters). Traditional societies didn't have a rigid concept of laws like modernity but relied on people making contextual decisions. He's right about Constitutions not being good, and free speech being a lie. But Uncle Seth should really read more philosophy and understand where those ideas come from, cause Orthodox people aren't big fans of "free speech". That's an Enlightenment idea. Constitutions are post-Enlightenment creations. Uncle Seth's argument about the *percentage of people who can follow "the rule" being small is inherently technocratic*. It's what the Spanish Inquisition tells Christ in "The brothers Karamazov": your laws (Christian love) are too harsh but ours are meant to make these useless idiots into good cogs in the machine. See? Our laws are so good, so go and don't come back! We're the experts and are successfully managing this enterprise. Which leads to his argument that laws exists to make society continue. Tell that to the Spaniards who are on the brink of losing Catalonia and Basque country. Why would people want to remain a part of "the society" and not fragment when they can have their own "laws" and pay no taxes upwards to a centralized government? His argument is "pope of one" liberalism, the kind that thinks that authority comes from below and that this can somehow give unity. But *authority doesn't come from below*, that's just fragmentation, death, reducing to the lowest common denominator. So is he denying the Western decadence we're seeing right now? Fragmentation is the inevitable consequence of liberalism. So the "whatever keeps the society together" becomes a rudderless tyranny where "good" becomes completely relative to what the technocrat believes is good. But there is no way to know "what's better" without first knowing what is good. Empiricism cannot give you morality. The idea that morality can come from empiricism is ridiculous, and it denies the fact that worldviews are prior lenses through which we see the world, not post-hoc rationalizations. Light people be rationalists with a wrong anthropology and gnoseology. They literally don't "know". They say "scientific knowledge" without knowing it means "knowledgy knowledge". So they go "my knowledgy knowledge which I deduced out of my experience gives me the right to rule the world". How about no? How about I'd rather die than let you despoil the world?
    5