Nah, not really. Just that I'm back from my tour of duty in Sarasota, having successfully pacified the in-laws and negotiated a framework for additional frank discussions of my shortcomings.
And to be honest, I've lost the plot. Where were we? Charles Murray, right? Just read the book. I've already moved on -- and on -- and on: one book on the way to Fla., one on the way back, and now three more in the mail.
By the way, this book by Hadley Arkes on Natural Rights and abortion is the most robust and penetrating analysis of the issue I've ever encountered. Pretty much compels assent, unless one is a moron or psychopath. After reading it, I don't see how any rigorously logical or intellectually honest person could ever promulgate the constitutional right to a dead baby, irrespective of whether or not one is religious.
Some readers have reported difficulty keeping up with me and trailing behind my doublewide sillybus, but so do I. Slippery fellow. Where'd ego!
I expect a resumption of abnormality tomorrow. Meanwhile, enjoy this complementary open thread.
The Religion the Almighty & Me Works out Betwixt us
multi-undisciplinary circumnavelgazing around the whole existentialada!
with • Neotraditional Retrofuturism • Mental Gymgnostics • Verticalisthenics • Dilettantric Yoga • Leftwing Ridiculism • Freevangelical Pundamentalism • Advanced Leisure Studies • Comparative Nonsense • Flaming Homilies • Jehovial Witticisms
The Cosmos is our school, The Intellect our Faculty, Truth the first Principal
Pages
▼
Thursday, February 09, 2012
29 comments:
I cannot talk about anything without talking about everything. --Chesterton
Fundamentally there are only three miracles: existence, life, intelligence; with intelligence, the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite. --Schuon
The quest, thus, has no external 'object,' but is reality itself becoming luminous for its movement from the ineffable, through the Cosmos, to the ineffable. --Voegelin
A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. --Wittgenstein
"Some readers have reported that they have difficulty keeping up with me and following my sillybus, but so do I. Slippery fellow. Where'd ego!"
ReplyDeleteYes, I am one of those, but I find if I just stick to the Raccoomendations I will eventually catch up to the slippery one (at least until he slips away again).
You go Bob! Read one for the Lipper!
ReplyDelete(that would be those of us who move our lips when reading or hear it being read to them in their heads)
Reminds me of an article I read in Biblical Archaeology Review mentioning one ancient NT scholar being blown away that the other ancient scholar could read silently to himself. It was part of an article about the Epistles being written to be read aloud.
I don't think I could be quite so magnanimous to such rapscallious in-liberals. I take it they either don't know about this blog, or have no desire to give it a glance, lest they find a reason to approve of you?
ReplyDelete"I expect a resumption of abnormality tomorrow. "
ReplyDeleteA nation mourns.
Visiting the in-laws is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. It feels so good when you stop.
ReplyDeleteA very Socratic observation mushymush.
ReplyDeleteSince this is open threat. Has anyone else picked up Mark Levin's new book Ameritopia? I thought it was such populist unintelligent crap that I almost puked. We're talking a major disservice to Conservative America.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read anything by a talkshow host ever. I do listen to Beck, Levin, or the Savage Weiner from time to time, depending on what's going on.
ReplyDeleteI figure Levin knows his audience.
The premise is a good one -- the desire of leftists for an earthly utopia goes back a long way, well before More's satire introduced the word, doubtless.
A person who would write for those who don't move their lips, as John says, could develop a good treatise on the tension between utopian progressives and Christian libertarians. Levin is not a libertarian.
I agree that the premise is a good one. However, the dissection of many of the philosophers is 180 degrees wrong. Also he completely ignores integral figures on both sides of the issue. I know it's a book for the masses, but he has no right to simply deride a philosopher as liberal swill (Plato) when iris obvious that he hasn't even read the text himself. Rather he unquestioningly relies on the notoriously horrible interpretations of morons like Karl Popper.
ReplyDeleteI love my in-laws.
ReplyDeleteHere's why, I think:
Have you ever noticed how no one else's parents get on George Casantza's nerves?
We never had this conversation.
I love my in-laws, too. Wonderful people. Baptists.
ReplyDeleteBooks, books, books. Isn't MOTT enough for now? No, I just ordered the Arkes book since it's related to work.
Does anyone have any recommendations as to who might be the top ten living European novelists/poets?
According to Nobel (cough), some might be:
Tomas Tranströmer(Sweden, apparently Christian)
Herta Müller (Romania)
J-MG Le Clézio
Orhan Pamuk (Istanbul, ok, right)
Harold Pinter
Elfriede Jelinek (Austria)
Imre Kertész (Hungary)
Of these, I've only read some Pamuk, whose self-absorbed meandering around isn't redeemed either by his insight or his artistry. IMO. I've only read a bit of Pinter and admire his craft.
I'm thinking of picking up Roberto Saviano's big expose' of the Camorra in Naples, Gomorrah. There's a guy with some stones.
Woo-Hoo!
ReplyDeleteVerdiales, thanks for the Nobel list; now I know what authors to avoid.
ReplyDelete:)
You're right, though - that Saviano guy must need a wheelbarrow to cart those around. Being solid granite, they probably help keep him from getting picked off by mob snipers, though...
For his next book, he should write something true about Islam.
ReplyDeleteRight Bob, lots of non-religious "pro-lifers" out there.
ReplyDeleteLook at the bright side. At least you're not a psychopath.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good point that one can be non-religious and pro-life. I can't speak for numbers, but anecdotally I happen to be married to such a one.
ReplyDeleteFunny that the point comes up today, too, since I had a detailed ultrasound this morning. Only about three months along, but already there's a fully-formed, recognizable and very much alive human being, most likely a girl, bouncing around in there like she owns the place. Only the willfully blind, the emotionally stunted or the depraved could see that and call it anything but "baby," and "life," and absolutely deserving of a chance to be born. The fact that so many women get abortions at this stage and much later, having been told that it's "just a clump of cells" or "tissue," that it "doesn't feel anything," is quite simply horrifying. Anyone looking at the screen would know that none of those claims is true.
Sorry for the personal; it touches a nerve.
Just off the top of my head, Nat Hentoff is probably the most well-known irreligious pro-lifer. He's been a writer for the hard-left Village Voice for like 50 years. Also, I believe Norman Mailer was even against birth control!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations again Julie!
ReplyDeleteAnd back when I didn't look fondly on religion, and when near broke, unmarried and faced with the possibility of an 'unwanted' pregnancy, as we talked it over there was no way that we could avoid realizing that the baby was a human life, and we both ruled abortion out as an option.
So yeah, non-religious pro-life is a position that is easily arrived at, if, that is, you actually think about it.
Using your own words, not copy-pasted ones, that is.
From Wikipedia: Hentoff has said that shortly after he "came out" as an opponent of abortion, several of his colleagues at The Village Voice stopped speaking to him. Hentoff has sardonically described himself as "a member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-Necked Jewish Atheists."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Van!
ReplyDeleteRe. Norman Mailer and birth control, or more broadly secularists and birth control, the Anchoress today linked a good article from a secularist perspective acknowledging that the Church was on to something.
-well, Hemingway was reputedly against ejaculation! [but pro-sex...]
ReplyDeleteone can see why
perhaps
+ A Taoist master I admire [Ni] advised that every abortion chops a year from the mother's life
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Julie!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dougman!
ReplyDeleteYes, William, there are non-religious pro-lifers....
ReplyDeleteSome say that, scriptures have said, that the soul doesn't incarnate until the third trimester. Not sure if it's true or roughly proximate.
ReplyDeleteAnybody familiar with David R. Hawkins recordings?
Anyway, it seems important to address inasmuch as it is a belief (or observation?) within certain authority.
ReplyDeleteIf the soul has not incarnated, what suffers due to an early term abortion, with no human soul yet incarnated (and more statistically likely to be identified with the physical and vital)?
Tried looking up sources for the idea and found some saying after the first trimester that the soul begins to incarnate..not sure what specific scriptures say anything about this. I think it was from Kabbalah or maybe Quran, or both, but I'm uncertain.
ReplyDelete