A compendium of truly interesting stuff
Bookworm on Apr 09 2010 at 5:45 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Over at Power Line, they call it clearing the spindle, a charmingly old-fashioned concept. But that’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve got a pile of posts from the last few days that I really want to share with you. In no particular order:
John Stossel has as good a definition of any I’ve seen about true libertarianism. Although I’m not a complete libertarian (there are some things I think need to be subject to regulation by a governing body), it’s pretty damn close to my philosophy. And just for a glimpse of how right Stossel is, read this article about the idiocy behind Michelle Obama’s very un-libertarian government war against childhood obesity.
Zombie writes about the mind-numbing mental gymnastics a group called Queers for Palestine engages in to justify protesting Israel’s pro-gay rights agenda. Understand that, while these people represent an extreme, they are still part of the same Left that gleefully turns on the only liberal democratic Republic in the Middle East (our unesteemed President included).
Oh, a question for you: since I’m not of a religious turn, the Antichrist really isn’t part of my frame of reference. Do any of you know of a non-religious philosophical equivalent to the Antichrist? When I read about Obama’s singular attack on Israel (one that has emboldened Palestinians to unprecedented extremes, even for them), his love affair with dictatorships, his assault on our economy and our freedoms, and his systematic destruction of our whole concept of self-defense, I’m thinking he’s a candidate for that role, whatever the secular equivalent is of the force leading to the non-religious apocalypse.
Considering all this, is it any wonder that we’ve entered a state of complete exhaustion from anxiety?
I’ve complained somewhere about the fact that the media is attack today’s 21st Century church for sex crimes committed in the 1950s through 1970s. Not to excuse those crimes, but the fact remains that the venom directed at today’s church seems unusual, motivated more by global animus to the church than by actual concern over 50 year old wrongdoings. Which leads to a very interesting question: Can one fairly judge yesterday’s deeds by today’s standards? I’ve always thought that there are some moral absolutes (no genocide, no slavery) that transcend time. Even as to that, though, one must still sift wheat from chaff (Jefferson was right about freedom, even thought he was incapable of applying it to his own life). As for other things, I still read both Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers despite the casual, non-venomous antisemitism that crops up in their books. And I think Gone With The Wind one of the greatest books ever written, despite the heinous, paternalistic attitude towards blacks.
First Hank Johnson is worried about unbalanced islands. Now Alan Grayson is launching paranoid attacks at restaurants. Yes, both parties have their sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll and money scandals, but I’m a mistaken in thinking that it’s only the Left that has the insane people?
Victor Davis Hanson writes in chilling terms about Obama’s unabashed Leftism. Liberal Americans always pooh-poohed the notion that it was impossible really to elect a true Leftist in America: “It can’t happen here.” As with so many things, they were wrong.
Aside from the money wasted on creating a huge effigy of a bloated hamburger eater, doesn’t the NHS know better than to burn it in effigy, which will only increase the amount of harmful pollutants in the environment? This is your brain; this is your brain after decades of socialized medicine, right?
During the election, Obama assured his that lobbyists would be shown the boot, and he’s now promised us that he’s done just that. Since our president couldn’t possibly lie, it’s clear that he meant, not that the lobbyists would get a sharp jab to the tuchis, propelling them out of the government door but, rather, that he would extend his booted foot for their rapturous tongue cleanings. How else to explain this?
Related posts:
- Really interesting stuff today which is all going to get piled into one post
- Interesting stuff
- Interesting stuff I don’t have time to blog about
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “A compendium of truly interesting stuff”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Oh, a question for you: since I’m not of a religious turn, the Antichrist really isn’t part of my frame of reference. Do any of you know of a non-religious philosophical equivalent to the Antichrist? ” Book, I believe that you were simply making a rhetorical reference; However, I will throw in my two cents on this. In my opinion, the word antichrist has been so overused that it is misused; especially by Hollywood. From my years in Catholic school I understand the true meaning of the antichrist to be one who will “appear” as Christ (whether that means in image or in actions is not clear); but, unlike Christ, the antichrist will not actually lead one to salvation. One could say a false prophet; except that there can be several prophets; but only one Christ. So, the logic must be that there can only be one antichrist. For a secular reference (albeit, with bibical overtones) think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing or perhaps a better analogy might be a wolf in shepard’s clothing. Sticking with this narrow definition Obama doesn’t fit the billing of antichrist with regards to Israel as Israel’s leaders never believed him to be their “saviour.” (I don’t think it was an “accident” or “mistake” that Israel announced settlement expansions in East Jerusalem while Biden was in town – I think is was very plainly calculated to let the USA know that Israel will not be pushed around). However, for the foolish Americans who voted for him he certainly is a “false prophet.”
Which leads to a very interesting question: Can one fairly judge yesterday’s deeds by today’s standards? I’ve always thought that there are some moral absolutes (no genocide, no slavery) that transcend time.
It’s late and I haven’t thought through the vital issue that you’ve raised, yet feel compelled to answer your question with a few more questions.
When studying history, why do we regard the (formerly) burning issues of the day with either baffled indifference or bemused detachment? (“An inch or two of cowl can put 25,000 monks up in arms”– Pascal. Or, to make the point more prosaically, pick any random political controversy, choose any half-forgotten cause celebre from a given decade.) Conjecture: because we have no direct personal stake in the issue and because we complacently regard ourselves as superior (due to 20/20 hindsight: we think we know what they didn’t know–but have we put ourselves in their position?)
Contrariwise, why do we feel pride (or shame, if rarely or ever acknowledged) about our ancestors? Conjecture: because we have an unmerited personal stake in the issue and because we have 20/20 hindsight.
How you judge the past depends on the reason(s) why you study it: To understand the past for its own sake? for antiquarian curiosity? for geneological pride? for heroic inspiration? for historical precedents? to make claims for or against the present? to forecast the future? or, more sinisterly, as an Orwellian means to control the future?
I think of all the great intellects and noble spirits from the past who either ignored, tolerated, or accepted practices that we moderns find abhorrent. Ancient slavery comes easily to mind: Surely an absolute wrong, one that transcends time, yet my rejection of it does not spring from my superior moral virtue; rather, my perspective on this eternal verity (i.e., slavery is wrong) arises from the dumb luck of being born an American in the late 2oth century, a free citizen, the beneficiary of machine labor. Aristotle said that luxury is the equipment of virtue, and I have the luxury of being right on this issue. Secular grace, indeed. Our heritage is a pure gift that we should endeavor to first preserve and secondly, to enlarge if possible, so that we can pass it along to posterity. We progress by honoring our past. And yet something is always lost.
The watchword is humility.
Progressives, who fight today for their causes with such scornful moral certainty, do not seem to realize that their own children will reject them tomorrow as moral cretins, using the self-same logic.
Today’s standard are not the last words, unless today truly is the end of days, the end of time, the eschaton. That is not for us to say, and if it were true, then progressivism would be false, because no further progress would be possible: instead we who live in the present are compelled to search the past so that we can imagine a better future.
I will end with a quote from Chesterton:
“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”
<B>That is not for us to say, and if it were true, then progressivism would be false, because no further progress would be possible</b>
Transnational progressivism isn’t so much concerned with progress; it is concerned with a perfect and permanent improvement in the human condition. At that point, there will be no need for progress, for indeed, anything of such permanence would be destroyed by further change.
Michael O’Brien has an interesting article (from a Catholic perspective) “ARE WE LIVING IN APOCALYPTIC TIMES?”
http://www.studiobrien.com/talks/are-we-living-in-apocalyptic-times-part-1.html
Here is an excerpt: Huxley’s 1931 dystopia Brave New World had warned that the age of world-organization was approaching (though still distant), and that such an age would abolish private life and personal responsibility. Writing thirty years later, in Revisited, Huxley was a good deal less optimistic, and expressed his conviction that the predictions he had made in 1931 were materializing at a much faster rate than he had thought possible. In the near future, he warned, we would see the rise of a “scientific dictatorship” in which there would be less violence than under Hitler and Stalin, “and in which we will be painlessly regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers,” and in which “democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial,” but “the underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.” Pieper points out that this is the most inhuman form of totalitarianism, almost impossible to throw off, because it can always cite what appear to be valid arguments to prove that it is not in fact what it is.
Do any of you know of a non-religious philosophical equivalent to the Antichrist? I think your question reveals why we won’t recognize the Antichrist for who he is. He will be non-religious.
…The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in the place of God and his Messiah who has come in the flesh
(Catechism of Catholic Church 675)
“He will be non-religious.”
Yet Obama claimed to be a Messiah and so did his backers. Light from the heavens, the heavenly chorus, and the lowering of the seas.
“The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in the place of God and his Messiah who has come in the flesh.”
I think esurio is on to something. We got a whiff of the mindset that would welcome an antichrist in the unthinking near-adoration that Obama’s supporters gave him in 2008. There was a distressing element in it of the longing so many people have to shed their individual consciousnesses and be folded into something bigger, giddier and more transcendent than mere daily existence.
Obama is a foretaste, but not the real thing. He not only lacks the intelligence and emotional chameleonism that a true antichrist would possess, his blundering in a position of great power is creating contemptuous enemies powerful enough to keep him from any prize of world domination. Think of Obama as John the Baptist to Jesus. He is paving the way for the antichrist by chipping away as best he can at the foundations of the United States to set up that condition of weakness and psychic debilitation that a true antichrist could exploit.
But that is to address Obama in terms of the antichrist as a charismatic individual who rises to spectacular heights of worldwide power—quite a feat. The more likely manifestation of the antichrist is in the Catholic description esurio cites: The antichrist does not refer to a specific man. It describes a “messianism”—a movement or overwhelming belief—very much like the one that has seized the elites of the West and the imams of Islam. We should not be on the lookout for an Obama as the antichrist so much as for what Obama represents.
I’ve always thought there are some moral absolutes (no genocide, no slavery) that transcend time.
I regret to say I think you’ve thought wrong. As history more or less consistently shows us: there aren’t. In all societies, morality is based in the absolutes of the moment, and they’re subject to change. I forget who it was I was just reading a couple of months ago, but he made an interesting remark, which I will try to quote with precision: “I would rather commit a sin than make a mistake. A mistake is a mistake forever, the definition of sin keeps changing, and something which is a sin today may not be tomorrow.”
If you eat meat on Fridays – big trouble. Well, maybe not. If women enter the church uncovered they will be scorned, and even in danger of stoning… oh. Maybe not. “Thou shalt not kill,” that’s about as absolute as it gets – except it’s not, especially for the boys in the Fighting 69th, which featured a well-armed and belligerent priest, even. (Who reportedly accounted for a few of the hated Hun himself.)
So I think that’s right, and the definition of sin is far less concrete (or set in concrete) than we generally suppose. Like much else, trying to define it and then stick there leads to the discovery that it’s kind of a slippery slope.
Most of the world’s holy texts come down firmly in favor of genocide from time to time – it didn’t seem to bother either God or the moral authorities at the time. And slavery of course has a long history prior to the 18th century of being absolutely routine throughout most of the planet. Every culture that ever won a fight took the losers as slaves in one form or another, and it was only as we became somewhat more sophisticated in the last couple of centuries that this shifted from being actual, physical slavery to become reparations-paying economic slavery – what’s the real difference? Either way the intent was to grind down and profit from the labor of the vanquished. Is one morally cooler than the other? I’m not qualified to say.
No – you cannot judge the behavior of the past by the moral standards of today. Particularly in the light of the fact that by the standards of the past, society today exhibits no morals whatsoever. Do we worship God? No. Do we go to church? No. Do we pray outside of the church? No – not unless that cop car behind us turns its lights on. Do we marry for life? No. Are we mostly faithful in marriage? Survey says: no. Do we educate our kids? It is to laugh. Do we teach them self-reliance, a sense of responsibility, and try to prepare them to be successful adults? It is to laugh very loudly. Do we have strong family lives? No – we can’t even get everybody together once a day to share dinner once the kids are older than 12. Do we keep it in our pants until we can afford to nurture and care for the result? No.
It’s entirely likely that someone like Mark Twain, author of what many (of the brainless) consider to be a racist book would take a look at society today and compare us to a tribe of degenerated alley-cats. We’d probably come out second-best in that comparison, too.
As regards antichrists, don’t worry about being religious. “Anti” is more about being a substitute for the real thing (the one who can really save the world or an individual), so egotistical strongmen of every stripe are in the running. The whole of scripture is about God saying, “Look to me. I am, and I am your only help” and, of course, everyone ignoring that or having to relearn it. There have always been plenty of antichrists (I John 2:18), but there is only one Christ.
I think jj brings out an interesting point. As long as you are chasing not-sinning about, you’ll never get it right. Better and more effective to chase God, and let him catch you.
>>So I think that’s right, and the definition of sin is far less concrete (or set in concrete) than we generally suppose.>>
I disagree. The definition of sin _is_ concrete. Sin is doing that which you know to be wrong. Now…what you know to be wrong may change, that’s true. But the concept of sin – breaking the standards of right and wrong within whatever community you live … doesn’t change.
>>As long as you are chasing not-sinning about, you’ll never get it right>>
Also not true. The idea of “not sinning” is the idea of having perfect control of your ideas and your inclinations. In other words, if you have an idea of what is right and wrong, and you _choose_ to do that which is right 100% of the time, you have reached perfection. Most of us don’t get very close to that measure. It doesn’t mean that we actually reach the point of sinning – breaking the standard of wrong-doing – but if we are less than in complete control of our inclinations, we haven’t reached perfection. How can you “chase not-sinning”? if you’re not careful, you might also “over-chase” and commit the sin of perfectionism! Then you get into pride…the greatest sin of all! I suspect that the sins of the mind are even greater than most sins of the flesh…
Well yeah, Sue – but the point is: the community keeps changing those standards!
Morality is about community standards. But ethics surpasses any individual or societal moral standard.
>>But the community keeps changing those standards!>>
>>Morality is about community standards.>>
>>ethics surpasses any individual or societal moral standard.>>
Hmmm. I’ve gotten into these morality vs ethics discussions before. They’re a bit dicey. Lots of definitions and assumptions.
In our present time frame, I’d say that Ethics do _not_ surpass moral standards. We have “legal ethics” and “medical ethics” for example, and neither have to do with morality. They are standards of certain professions that are established by those professions.
Morality, on the other hand, has to do with behaving in accordance with religiously established standards. Religious ethics, maybe?? Internal standards vs external standards?
Which came first chicken or egg?
Is there a difference in purpose?
Does it matter?
<B>I’d say that Ethics do _not_ surpass moral standards. We have “legal ethics” and “medical ethics” for example, and neither have to do with morality. </b>
I say surpass only in the context that it is not limited to relative frameworks or changes in time.
Legal ethics and medical ethics are 1. most of the time faulty and philosophically unsupportable and 2. restricted to the tribe called “lawyers” or “doctors”.
When they say ethics, they mean that for all doctors, everywhere, this would and should apply all the time, regardless of cultural distinction. But an ethics that covers only one way of life or profession, isn’t ethics. It’s a uniform code of conduct, a standard of conduct. Standardized for a select group of people, a select type of people.
An ethical framework that encompasses all of humanity, in all professions and times, is another thing entirely.
” Does it matter?”
It does matter. How humans decide to govern themselves or to setup institutions to do the same, they must make decisions. Without an adequate perception of what tools are available and how to apply them, the foundation will be weak and the future will suffer for it. People have been looking for the most all encompassing ethical system since forever. Just as scientists have sought out the Unified Theory of Everything.
Newton may be useful and good enough for most people, but to construct better systems, one would need to use more accurate models, more all encompassing models. The Church, because they stipulate a metaphysics defined by God, creates an ethical structure that applies to all cultures and people. A soul would not be a soul if only the righteous had it.
Morality is strictly a local matter. As such, it is limited in the amount of good it can accomplish across a finite time period. It’s impossible to construct working human communities without moral standards. One must have some kind of societal framework from which to judge right vs wrong, in order to guide the young and the old towards common survival and common prosperity.
Ethics, however, deals with how to resolve issues between those moral constructs. Should there ever be a conflict between one’s morality and another’s morality, morality is not going to solve anything because of the intense and manifestly self-defining bias.