You might wonder, how does a philosophical view of the world differ from an ordinary view? Well, here’s a good example:
This is a partisan, conservative post from a group I know nothing about. Just came across it on Twitter. The listicle purports to advance “five serious truths.”
But wait. Not one of these “truths” is a fact. Each one is a normative opinion, should statements at best, commands at worst.
It’s really just a series of demands.
You might wish to fard up your demands as “truths” but that doesn’t cut it. Each one of these demands, to qualify as “truths,” requires demonstration, at the very least, with theory and fact to back it up. Not mere dogmatic statement. What we see, here, is really just a form of careless, base rhetoric, claiming for your preferences a factual content that is not evident at all.
Now, I’m not saying these five truths-manqué are not good ideas. I might be convinced of one or two of them, if some argument were offered. Maybe. But what I know is that they are not facts and they are not easily defined as “truths.”
What else do I know? That the mind that put them together is not at all interested in careful analysis or reasonable promotion of his or her ideas.
Take the first claim, about having an “absolute right” to resist immigration. Such a right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, and does not even seem to be there implicitly. It was not mentioned by any of the classical liberal texts upon which the Constitution was, common historical opinion has it, based — you know, the works of Locke and the Levellers and Grotius and Cicero and Montesquieu, or even Tom Paine, whose Rights of Man came later. This “absolute right” is also undermined by the obvious fact that the laws of our land came entirely from an immigrant culture. Yes, I am talking about the European invasion of the Americas. Wandering, migrating Europeans, after re-peopling the Americas with white and African stock, then (we are to belive?!?!) cooked up an absolute right to prevent doing exactly what did?
Nonsense, of course. This “absolute right” is the weakest statement of the lot. It’s not a truth, but almost certainly a falsity.
This is the kind of lowbrow, sub-intellectual nonsense that dominates our political landscape, left and right. I guess this is “right-wing” nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.