Monday, September 22, 2014

A Liberal is a Man Who Can Prove Everything and Nothing

While perusing this piece this morning at Ace of Spades, a thought occurred to me: I don't have time for a post.

Then another thought: it is more than a little interesting that the logic of the left is so flexible -- a less charitable person would say nonexistent -- that it can prove anything. With one exception: the existence of God.

How weird is that? Even if we concede that the existence of God is absurd, this should pose no barrier whatsoever to the left. Rather, the very existence of the left is rooted in logical absurdities, in comparison to which God is the one and only thing of which we may be absolutely certain.

Now, as usual, this will sound polemical and bobastic, but it is not. Just think of the uses to which "leftist logic" is put, and to the many impossibilities it is able to prove: that there is no fundamental difference between men and women; or that children aren't entitled to a mother and father; or that earth is warming due to carbon even though carbon has increased by 25% over the past 17 years while the temperature has remained stable; or that charging more for energy will result in less demand, while charging more for labor will have no effect on demand; or that genes explain everything except racial differences; or that free will doesn't exist; or that homosexuality is natural and normal; or that our minds do not disclose reality... one could go on and on.

But the whole modern project is rooted in a profound and primordial illogicality, an outright rejection of reality. Once you accept this initial illogicality, then it is like the faith with which All Things Are Possible. Once you leave logic behind, then you can indeed use it to prove anything.

Chesterton makes this same point in his book on Aquinas, that "Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to reality; to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."

Rather, each philosophy starts "with a paradox; a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they [the common man] would call a sane point of view." One finds this initial absurdity in everyone from Descartes and Kant on down to the tenured rabble of today.

It's easy: just start by believing one little thing "that no normal man would believe," and the magic never ends. Chesterton cites several typical examples, e.g., that law is above natural right, or that things are only ideas, or that everything is relative. True, one cannot strictly prove, say, that solipsism isn't the case, but that doesn't mean that solipsism is the case. You also can't prove your eyes see the real world, but that doesn't prove you're blind.

Thomas too asks us to make just one little leap of faith, but this leap ushers us into the real world, for the simple reason that it asks us to believe that our senses disclose the real world. Yes, you can, under a multitude of guises, reject that leap of faith, but to do so is to commit spiritual suicide and cognitive cluelesside.

I wasn't kidding about having no time. To be continued tomorrow...


EbonyRaptor said...

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" ... but if that first step is in the wrong direction the journey will fail to take you to the right place. Stepping away from reality, from truth, from God will inevitably lead to what we see today - lost people totally immersed in falsehood knowing nothing of their real predicament.

julie said...

Yes. All it takes is that first step in believing what "no normal man would believe," which is effectively like dividing your intelligence by zero. I must suspect, then, that the reason they are so determined not to prove the existence of God is that doing so would immediately cancel out the effect.

The nice thing about dividing by zero is it seems to grant an omnipotent power. But when God enters the equation, suddenly one must cede the power to a higher authority, who might actually disapprove of your lifestyle of choice.

julie said...

Speaking of posts at Ace's, this one has me wondering just how long it's going to be before God gets tired of this whole mess and just goes full smite on the world. He promised no floods, but I don't think SMOD is off the table.

I was just reading yesterday about one of the appearances of Mary that happened back in the 1800s; back then, the world made her cry. Can't help wondering if, at this point, any visitations might reveal that now she's just about ready to let go of her Son's arm and encourage him to give it all he's got.

mushroom said...

I think it's fine to let the insane run the asylum because the sane have better things to do than hang around a bunch of crazy people. On the other hand, it might have been a mistake to leave them the keys.

mushroom said...

It will be fire next time.

Dustbury wants to believe Ms. Trois-tit is a hoax. I hope he is right.

If he's not, how long before some fool tries to top it with a four-barrel.

Or, worse -- a dual, uh, exhaust.

julie said...

Ha - now that would be pretty funny. If it's going to happen, it probably would be here in Florida, too.

If I should see Ms. Three Boobs walking around, I'll be sure to try and ignore them as much as possible. South Florida is pretty much a sideshow anyway, so she probably doesn't stand out as much as she thinks.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"It's easy: just start by believing one little thing "that no normal man would believe," and the magic never ends."

And what is seen as magic is, in reality destruction.
Or perhaps it is magic. Dark magic. And there's always a price for that.
It costs a soul and an enslaved mindlessness.
All for an infusion of illusion and delusion.

And we all know what that illusion of man-forced utopia really is.