After our discussion with Professor Saad, I found that many of the arguments he brought up and later Professor Riley solidified were extremely interesting. The idea of non-falsifiability and false consciousness were an interesting take on the arguments which Professor Saad described.
Non-falsifiability is one of the main issues in the idea of the parasitic mind. It prevents any idea from being held to scrutiny of truth, anything could be true under this pretense. There were several examples that Professor Saad and Professor Riley gave of this, one of which was especially concerning. The example he gave of the Israeli soldiers who were accused of gang raping Palestinian women by the droves and when it was actually studied, there was not a single occurrence of such acts. The woman who performed the research twisted the meaning of this data into the fact that they were reviled by these women and did not find these women worthy of such acts. I think this very clearly goes back to that idea we learned regarding gnosticism, in that this world is inherently corrupt and needs to be changed in all aspects in order for true utopia to arise. This also stems back to the idea that intellectuals believe they have the truth therefore anything they study or do must be true and data can be skewed or interpreted in such a way to fit that narrative of undeniably “true” thoughts.
Another example was one Professor Riley brought up about the role the patriarchy plays on female and male innate gender differences. The feminist writer he quoted stated that women were incapable of consenting to sexual encounters because of our patriarchal society where the men rule over all and any woman who believes otherwise is simply not aware of the fact that they are being manipulated by the male population. This is exactly the same argument the intellectual class had for the people in the proletariat that were content with their lives at that moment. They simply were not smart enough or aware enough to clearly see that connection and need to forcibly be reminded that that control exists. Here that idea of false consciousness presents itself. Women simply do not have the mental capacity to understand that they are being manipulated and they need to be shown the truth by those who can see past that oppression. This clarifies much of the reason why the Left feels so strongly about this. It is like a religious belief and many of these statements are faith-based arguments, not unlike arguments and beliefs held by Christians, Muslims or Jewish people.
What I find hard to understand is why they have such contempt toward those that have differing views and express that opposition? Why are they immediately labeled as sexist or racist for those views? I have never personally met a Christian or someone of any other faith who feels so strongly to tear down others for their opposing religious or worldly views. Yet in political frameworks, based on which side of the spectrum you lie on, one is immediately labeled with hateful and resentful terminology.
One reply on “Blog 9”
I also found it quite fascinating that we are able to link Gnosticism to Wokeism that we see now. I feel that the key argument in both cases is that they would start with certain beliefs like “the world is corrupt” or “women have been manipulated” or “every society will ultimately be communist”, and go on to find things that support their arguments. I also have the same question on the matter: why are these people so certain about their own ideas? The explanation from Prof. Riley on things before this was that intellectuals are prone to think in certain ways like believing in the utopia or believe that one is “fighting for a cause” in the case of communists.
My personal idea is that people think in different ways when they are part of some group vs. when they are alone. In Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, it is argued that people behave differently when they are identify as being part of “the crowd,” and they become less rational and can be easily led astray. Moreover, from an evolutionary perspective, it is possible that people are using the “herd mentality” when they are arguing political matters. Those with different political ideas are thus identified as being in the “out-group” — enemies of one’s own group — because they share different and often opposing interests. And at that point, people would try all they could to tear others down.
This might also be the explanation for why Marx’s ideas got so many intellectuals to be so deeply devoted in the proletariat revolution. Maybe many intellectuals were not satisfied for their social status given that they are so knowledgeable. And then they might identify the capitalists as their common enemy. Now, the intellectuals are on the same side with the proletariat, and they thus would do anything needed to bring down the enemy and to make sure their own group advances.