Think about it. You won't have to think too long before coming to the realization that it can only be nothing. Or anything, depending upon how you look at it.
Which very much relates to our second thoughtlet, the innocent sounding affirmation that You have to start somewhere. For where one starts will determine, among other things, where one ends. For example, in the words of the Aphorist,
The philosopher who adopts scientific notions has predetermined his conclusions.
This is quite literally true. Limited to the scientific method, one can't even say that knowledge should be limited to what the scientific method can prove. In other words, to affirm that science = truth is to have left the scientific method far behind and below. One is up in the world of metaphysics, but anchored to what? Science minus metaphysics = what? Nothing. For
Without philosophy, the sciences do not know what they know (NGD).
Would it also be accurate to say that the philosopher who adopts transnatural metaphysical notions has predetermined his conclusions? No, not at all. It's called being curious, and not prematurely filling the space of curiosity with some arbitrary answer just to make one's epistemic anxiety go away. Not only is it okay to not know the answer, it's mandatory!
Speaking of cluelessness, I read this morning that AOC wakes up at 3:30 AM due to anxiety over climate change. Now, since the dawn of history women have been waking up in the middle of the night with anxiety. What distinguishes anxiety from fear is that the latter is a physiological response to a real external threat, whereas anxiety is a physiological response that attaches itself to some external cause in order to explain itself to itself.
Think of the millions of leftists who are afraid that our president is a "white supremacist." Being that he is obviously nothing of the sort, this represents the projection of a spurious cause to explain the effect. But the effect -- the anxiety -- comes first. Which means that "white supremecism" is actually the effect of the anxiety, not vice versa. If you eliminated white supremacism, then the anxiety would simply attach itself to some other phantom, say, Russian collusion, or mental incompetence, or whatever the next one will be.
Likewise, "climate change" is the effect, not the cause, of AOC's anxiety. She mentions being anxious for her potential family, which is closer to the real cause, since all young women are concerned about their present or future children, whether consciously or unconsciously. Motherhood is a real archetype, and you can't get around it by projecting it into the weather, any more than a beta male can get around the father archetype by, say, embracing a purely maternal socialism. In that case, the archetype will just return in monstrous form (as in the case of fatherless children, whose father often reappears in the form of prison).
Where do we begin? In the past, we've batted around Stanley Jaki's idea that most philosophers begin on second or third base without ever explaining how they arrived at first. Indeed, some imagine they have gotten all the way home!
This is no joke. Then again, it is. Think of the modern atheist crowd, i.e., Hitchens-Harris-Dawkins & Dennett. "God doesn't exist." That's what you call an epistemological round-tripper, or home run.
Okay, fine. But if you know anything about baseball, you will have noticed that even if the ball sails out of the park, the hitter must nevertheless touch all the bases, including home plate. If he fails to do so, then the run doesn't count, no matter how far the ball went.
Analogously, to say "God doesn't exist" is to have hit the ball clear out of the cosmic stadium. But this doesn't change the rules: you still have to get to first base. Which is to say, a Darwinian monkey has to know things that no Darwinian monkey could ever know. Or, in order for atheism to be true, a miraculous transformation must occur between the monkey in batter's box and the man on first base.
Now that I think about it, the rules of baseball explain everything. There is a pitcher; there is a batter; and there is a ball. The pitcher is being, or reality; the ball is objects, or intelligible things; and the batter is intelligence, or the human person. You could even say that different bats -- or different ways of hitting the ball -- correspond to different disciplines, e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Extending the analogy, physicists in particular imagine they are the cleanup hitter, the one who drives in all the runs. But this can't be true. In reality, they are the leadoff man who simply tries to get on base by any means necessary. Physics is not and cannot be a home run; more like a modest blooper or bunt single. Assuming physics gets on base, you still need metaphysics to drive him home. Here is how Jaki describes it:
Unfortunately, much of philosophy, especially in modern times, has come to resemble more and more a spurious baseball game: there the opposing teams (schools of philosophy) assume without further ado, that one can get to first base without first hitting a real ball...
Indeed, postmodernism in general and deconstruction in particular begin with the assumption that there is no real ball to begin with. Really, it's baseball reduced to Calvinball, such that anybody can get on base any time for any reason. As such, it's no longer a game, just a scramble for power. As in socialism, it's not a game, but there are surely winners and losers.
To be continued...
32 comments:
Man minus God = whatever one could experience within their own lifespan. For ethical empaths this would include making the world a better place for others since this is what makes them feel good. For evil sociopaths this would include ruining other lives for personal gain as well as for sport, since this is what makes them feel good. So it all comes down to Rule of Law, and whoever it is that controls the enforcement.
Science is limited to proving what’s been detected by the five senses. But what if there are actually twelve senses possible in this universe? That’d mean a lot of science is being undetected by the scientists. Good thing scientists aren’t in control. So it all comes down to Rule of Law, and whoever it is that controls the enforcement.
Trump seems about as white supremacist as Mexicans would be brown supremacist if their livelihoods were being degraded by non-taxpaying non-native white citizens (though he is a politician). So it all comes down to Rule of Law, and whoever it is that controls the enforcement
If American life was baseball, then the team owner’s family and allies would be playing all the best positions. Scores wouldn’t really matter much and for many fans the team itself would be everything, regardless of win/lose. As you can tell by now I really like rules and laws, but I also do tend to hate lawyers and politicians.
Now, since the dawn of history women have been waking up in the middle of the night with anxiety. What distinguishes anxiety from fear is that the latter is a physiological response to a real external threat, whereas anxiety is a physiological response that attaches itself to some external cause in order to explain itself to itself.
Had to laugh at that - it's funny, because it's true. Sometimes anxiety is just another unsolvable (hormonal) mystery, which, too, shall pass. Other times, there really are things to worry about, but the anxiety doesn't make those things any more manageable.
Female hormones are among the most powerful substances in all of creation -- right up there with male hormones.
The older I get, the more I realize how true it is that women have no idea what it's like to be a man, and vice versa. Though being on cross sex hormones, for whatever reason, may give someone a glimpse; even then, it's not the same.
Have your emotions but don't let them get you worked up. Take a lesson from the woman screaming at her husband when the doorbell rings. Suddenly she's all smiles and pleasantness (unless it's a vacuum cleaner salesman). Amazing how that works.
As far as climate change goes, it used to be a bipartisan issue with most people being mildly concerned for their progeny but everybody waiting for the first brave soul to give up their luxurious carbon producing lifestyle. Of course Al Gore wasn’t going to be that guy. So the fossil fuel folks did their usual behind the scenes agitprop thing and suddenly most white vangies I knew were ridiculing climate change every time it snowed. AOC is probably right to be concerned, but is she and her generation going to reduce their carbon footprint as an example for the rest of us? And then what about those Chinese?
Now what do we do about all the people getting up at 3:30 am due to their anxiety about AOC becoming the leader of the western world?
Seems like a matter of time before someone like her is in charge. The best we can do is forestall it. Like death.
I’d worry more about that day when the CPC leader approaches the podium and says simply: “We win”.
"Without philosophy, the sciences do not know what they know (NGD)."
:-)
"Where do we begin? In the past, we've batted around Stanley Jaki's idea that most philosophers begin on second or third base without ever explaining how they arrived at first. Indeed, some imagine they have gotten all the way home!
This is no joke."
No, it is not, even when funny, it's no laughing matter. As with the cases of satirical sites like The Onion, and BabylonBee, when the satire becomes indistinguishable from the news, the fact that is written humorously, doesn't make it lighthearted... doom & gloom gather.
aninnymouse said "...So it all comes down to Rule of Law, and whoever it is that controls the enforcement..."
Law - Reason = No Law at all,AKA: the Rule of Rules.
Reason - Metaphysical Truth = the 'Critical Thinking' of Utilitarian Sophistry.
Rule of Rules + Utilitarian Sophistry = The Cynical War of All Against All... for the 'Greater Good!'.
Pass.
Hello Dr. Godwin and Panel. Good to see some lively discussion going on here.
AOC was duly elected by her constituents. They agree with her views of climate change. AOC has a responsibility to represent the constituents, and to speak out on what the constituents want. You apparently don't agree with AOC or the people who put her in office.
Now you exercise your right to free speech and express your opposition. But for the record, Sock Puppet #1 views your printed caterwauling as catty.
AOC has balls the size of Jupiter. You guys, pebbles.
Van, your comment of 2:48 in reply to anonymous is incoherent.
What is it you were trying to say? What does it mean to "pass?" Do you imply you will not comply with the rule of law? Do you have a diseased relationship with the society in which you live?
What is "Utilitarian Sophistry?" Oh, let me guess. You've found a term to describe how people you don't agree with think.
Anonymous asserted "it all comes down" to the Rule of Law, "and whoever controls the enforcement." A valid if somewhat obvious assertion. The shotgun in the squad car, that's the rule of law. That's what it comes down to. Quite simple.
Raccoons, this is a Democracy and Lefty gets a lot of votes. Read 'em and weep.
I used to love Calvinball! You're spot on, it's perfectly analogous to the bald struggle for power that's necessitated when we throw out the rules; or rather, ignore them.
Maybe Van is saying that if metaphysics was more a part of American law schools and American law enforcement, that our Chinese competitors wouldn't have a chance?
Intriguing. Confucianism/Taoism/Buddhism vs. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Which is the stronger?
Why pit them against each other?
That really decisive of you:)
Hello Daniel T, Anonymous 9:27, and Doug.
Daniel T: The "bald struggle for power" has been a constant since Paleolithic times. In our times, is is writ large in nuclear arsenals. It plays out at street level between police and law-breakers. It even plays out in the private home between spouses.
That being said, there has from the first been an even stronger tendency towards order, cooperation, mutual aid, respect for the rights of others, and sense of fair play.
There is a dynamic tension between these two constants. The average citizen ends up in a milieu of ordered rule of law and relative safety, at the same time wary of sudden violence. For the most part order prevails.
But yes, rule of law depends on lethal force, that is the bottom line. Everybody understands this. Therefore firm control of the police and military is job #1 for any government. All nations are socialist in this regard.
Anonymous, I think you understood Van better than I did, however relating that to China is a curious turn and opens up multiple avenues of discussion. Do you feel the Chinese have some kind of leg up on the USA? If so, why?
And Doug, I think you put your finger on the signal movement of our times. Why compete when we could cooperate? This is the whole point of having one unified global government. It will require several centuries (est 300 years) for everyone to get used to it, after millenia of nation-building.
The payoff will be staggering levels of wealth generated by exploitation of resources on nearby satellites. I can say, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Keep your eye on space projects, foreign, domestic, national or private, military or civilian. These will all be integrated within 100 years.
Culture wars, extremism, civilian migrations, violence, these are growing pains. But, the prize is in the offing, if we can dodge the nuclear bullet (the wild card).
Stay tuned, stay loose, these are the best of times.
Sock Puppet #1
If the One Whirled Government is under my direction, I would approve.
Anyone else and the deal is off.
(Unless, of course, if Yeshua comes to take the throne :)
Do you feel the Chinese have some kind of leg up on the USA? If so, why?
Chinese Communism doesn't seem nearly as foolhardy as the Soviets were. The Soviets were more ideological, but the Chinese bring elements of their respect for history, worldy wisdom, openness and long-term strategy into their political strategies. I believe they knew that American economics was short term profit oriented ala Milton Friedman, but without the counterbalancing rules he implied in his famous profit aphorism (Americans seem to roll that way. We always get the first part, ignore the rest, like so many do with their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment). Chinese leaders knew that American corporate leaders were smart but lazy, that they'd rather earn their stock bonuses by reducing labor costs than investing in risky new business ideas. Americans have short term tactics, the Chinese have long term strategy.
When I was a kid my world history book had pictures of Chinese doing manual labor wearing the only suit they owned, that green one with the red star cap. Only a few short decades later all the best stuff in the world is being built there by people who own many kinds of clothing. Prager tells us that it was the freedom, stupids. But I don't think so. Xi Jinping has never in any speech, spoken of permanently moving towards economic libertarianism. He always speaks of a steadfast devotion to socialism. And he never ever speaks of God.
Of course the Chinese didn't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. They invited American leaders to build China up by giving China American jobs and technologies, willingly or not. And both American parties were complicit in this. Neither major American party cares much about the people they're supposed to be serving. They care about their donors.
So... speaking of Van, so where was God in all this?
aninnymouse said "...Do you imply you will not comply with the rule of law?"
I stated that there is a difference between the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Rules, and that the former depends upon far more than enforcement, and that the latter prefers there be nothing more than that.
"The shotgun in the squad car, that's the rule of law. That's what it comes down to. Quite simple." And quite stupid, though it is an excellent example of Utilitarian Sophistry. If for some reason you're interested in understanding what I mean, then have I got a series of posts for you, thirteen in fact, that make up my series on 'The Rule of Law in Progress or Regress'.
Though, of course if you found what I said above to be incoherent... you might be wasting your time.
aninnymouse said "...this is a Democracy..."
Ooh, sorry, no, no it's not, and no, it's not just a matter of semantics. Republic vs. Democracy - is it just semantics?
Sock Puppet #1,
I can tell the difference between various anonymous commenters. You may be right, the others cannot? Anyways...
Polybius once tried to explain Romes backslide from Republic to Imperial Monarchy, backed by a powerful oligarchy. He was on our Founders reading list. Yet despite all the checks and balances many say this is happening to the USA today. No emperors yet, it seems to me that this would require enough of the mob to be so disenchanted with "the American Dream" that they'd demand an authoritarian solution.
Sock Puppet #2
Van,
Where I live, public referendums require a majority vote. These form a large part of local government. But if say, something as major as Brexit can be struck down by elected representatives, then you have a point. We must be careful who we 'want' to lead us.
No one leads the US.
WE Elect Representatives.
.
^^^ What Doug said.
Hello Sock Puppet #2, this is #1.
I see your fundamental point, which is people should take care and use critical thinking skills to carefully evaluate a politician before vetting them for office, whether in Britain or in the USA.
Once in office, there is no guarantee said politician will perform as desired. It is a gamble, every time.
As to this blog, I represent the middle of the road (MOR) demographic. I am seeking to understand the discomforts expressed by Godwin and by his satellite associates such as Van Harvey.
It is easy to understand their philosophy and so forth, but to figure out what exactly they would like to see happen differently is kind of difficult. I recently remarked Van was being incoherent, and by that I don't mean his sentences don't hang together, but that it is difficult to determine if he is under some kind of oppression or has been wronged that spurs his bitter complaints about the ways things are.
It's a hobby, nothing more.
How about you? Are you oppressed? Have a beef? Or just curious?
Regards, SP1
Doug, Ted just called it “leader of the western world”. As long as executive orders remain legal, I’m more with Ted. That's a lotta power for one elected rep.
I have some family which I've observed shifting from the political apathy or loose party affiliation typical of most Christians from that generation (keeping God #1, Mammon a separate #2), to now appearing cult-brainwashed. These people have no real beefs, life’s going well for them. But they’re prone to these sudden angry outbursts about the pure concentrated evil of “The Democrats”. No doubts there are cultists from the other side as well.
When I do some homework I find Dems are no more or less beholden to donor corruption than Republicans are. Today we wind up with top-ranking former public servants like the so-called-socialist Obama, giving speeches on Wall Street for $400K a pop, and anti-druggie family man John Boehner peddling dope. And people today think this is acceptably normal! Seems like yesterday we had all that fuss over Nixon and Clinton doing a little lying. I'm coming to seriously believe that people are being manipulated into bitter tribalization and being focused on wasting energy on each other so that fake ‘uniter, hopey changey, with her, making America great again, Uncle Joe...’ con artists can enrich themselves, at the expense of the people they’re supposed to be serving.
I looked back at what made America great back in the good old days, when all the best stuff was being done right here. All the best technology, the best entertainments, the best public works, sports, music... you name it. Maybe I have an answer. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I’ll present an analogy.
I know a married couple where both are what could be called fiscal conservatives. Austere tightwads. When a family problem comes along they’re so penny wise and pound foolish that the problem festers until they wind up having to spend the big bucks to fix it. They’re also boring. Their kids play with crappy toys. They're unpopular, uncool.
I know another married couple where both are what I’d call spendthrifty progressives. They’re always buying the latest ‘magical’ stuff. When a family problem comes along they’ll do every imaginable solution sparing no expense. Fools with money can be some party, but I doubt they have any savings. I also know a couple where there’s one dreamer-schemer (progressive), and one who’s good with the money (fiscal conservative). But they fight all the time. I’m waiting for the divorce. I know their problem isn’t their differences but their intransigence, because I know another couple just like which doesn't fight. They calmly work things out. They know it’s them against the world, and they’ve figured out how to work together to dream big but spend practically for their best possible life together. Tell me where this analogy doesn't work with what once was, in America.
I also want to understand anacylosis better. I believe it happens at smaller scales than just nations, in smaller organizations like small businesses. I want to figure out what can be done about it, if anything. I get insights from widely varying web sources ranging from ESPN to this little place.
Sorry Sock#1. Typing fast. 9/02/2019 09:55:00 PM was Sock#2.
Hi Sock2, this is Sock1.
I enjoyed your detailed comment. Your insights on why some folks issue seemingly groundless denunciations of Democrats are appreciated.
As far as the possibility of power-players manipulating the people into tribal conflict in order to exploit them, that will require some further study. I have a hunch people don't need to be manipulated into conflicts, rather they do so for some secondary gain emotionally. I think people may be somewhat bored and pick fights for entertainment. I may be guilty of this myself.
And, your insights on financial dynamics within couples are very interesting.
That's all I time for this morning, but again, thanks for your thoughts. Keep 'em coming.
I mentione ESPN because I used to enjoy the comments at the ESPN website, especially NFL and college sports. Some fans really knew their stuff, with great insights. One could discuss the details of why Alex Smith did so well with the Chiefs as a fill-in QB and Mahomes mentor, while his replacement Kaepernick did poorly with his former 49ers. I didn’t care much about the anthem kneeling fad one way or the other, or that Kaepernick was blackballed or not. These things happen in our free America. But NFL discussions got spammed/trolled by armchair politicians who had nothing to offer the sports minded debaters. For all I know those comments could have been coming mostly from Russian troll farms and a few alt-right nutjobs.
So ESPN shut down all comments of every kind, in every sport they covered.
Apparently a few bad apples had ruined it for everybody else, a true tyranny of the minority. Many of the most outspoken NFL players are Christians, many fans are conservatives, and the NFL and ESPN are owned by profit oriented corporatists who likely care very little about police on black violence (maybe unless it's one of their star players). But that didn’t prevent a few conservative websites from blaming the “liberals running the NFL and ESPN”, obvious red meat bs meant to thrill their audience.
That whole thing was messed up, don't you think?
aninnymouse said "...ine if he is under some kind of oppression or has been wronged that spurs his bitter complaints about the ways things are. It's a hobby, nothing more."
No, I'm neither under oppression, been wronged, or bitter - just mindful of the differences between the way things are, and the way they should be. It's a love of wisdom, nothing less, and certainly nothing more.
I'm stealing: Oh dot minus Oh eqals dot; and Van Harvey's equation.
;-)
Post a Comment