Sunday, September 22, 2019

The Educational Establishment and the Incarnation of Stupid

Before reading Common Sense Nation, I had never heard of the philosopher Thomas Reid, the intrepid discoverer of Common Sense. Prior to him, no one had any or knew what it was. It was as if the whole world were populated by MSNBC hosts.

All gaggery aside, Reid founded a school of thought known as common sense realism. Right away you can see why this wouldn't appeal to the tenured, as their whole mystique is based upon the essentially gnostic idea that they possess some special knowledge inaccessible to the restavus. Therefore, common sense realism blows their cover and reveals them as the phonies and frauds they are, without so much as a fig leaf of credibility to cover what amounts to a naked will to power.

Nevertheless, academia has been dining out on this anti-intellectual hoax for half a century, although there are signs their bubble is in the process of bursting.

As ususal, aphorisms come to mind:

--Instruction does not cure foolishness; it equips it.

--The learned fool has a wider field to practice his folly.

--The State imposes obligatory and free instruction, for making a stupid man still stupider at the public expense.

--Modern education delivers intact minds to propaganda (Dávila).

Note that, for reasons of self-preservation, the last thing the state is going to do is promulgate a philosophy that undercuts the very need for statism. In short, education must deny, obscure, and debilitate the functioning of common sense.

Indeed, this is why public schools don't teach children logic, economics, or ethics, for if they did, they might produce self-governing individuals animated by common sense instead of intellectually enfeebled and dependent drones. Someone like AOC is a pure product of our public and higher educational system. She's not an accident. She's the epitome and quintessence, the very embodiment of the negation of common sense.

According to Prof. Wiki, Reid enumerated

a set of principles of common sense which constitute the foundations of rational thought. Anyone who undertakes a philosophical argument, for example, must implicitly presuppose certain beliefs, such as "I am talking to a real person," and "There is an external world whose laws do not change," among many other positive, substantive claims.

The point is, the very possibility of rational discourse presupposes various implicit principles that cannot not be, on pain of rendering rational discourse strictly impossible. Likewise,

For Reid, the belief in the truth of these principles is not rational; rather, reason itself demands these principles as prerequisites, as does the innate "constitution" of the human mind. It is for this reason (and possibly a mocking attitude toward Hume and Berkeley) that Reid sees belief in the principles of common sense as a litmus test for sanity.

Which is why, for example, the American Psychological Association is no longer a promoter of sanity, but rather, has become an enthusiastic proponent and enabler of personal and collective insanity, e.g., transgenderism, intersectionality, and identity politics.

Reid observed that "before men can reason together, they must agree in first principles; and it is impossible to reason with a man who has no principles in common with you." Sure, you can do other things with such people. That's what relatives are for. It's just that they are "not fit to be reasoned with."

Engaging in dialogue with those who do not share our assumptions is nothing more than a stupid way to kill time (Dávila).

Anyway, it turns out that this proponent of common freaking sense and rudimentary sanity was a huge influence on the founders. For Reid, what he calls common sense is the very power in us that renders understanding possible.

Think about that one: when you understand something, it is because understanding is possible in principle. Therefore it is appropriate to ask: by virtue of what principle(s) is understanding possible?

I haven't actually thought this through in a completely systematic way, because I am not a systematic guy. More of an intuitive guy. But as I've said all along, one headrock principle surely must be that the world is intelligible to intelligence. If not, then we're all done here except for those tenured pretexts for a naked Power Grab alluded to above.

For Reid, "self-evident truths are true and discoverable by us because of the constitution of our human nature." In the absence of the latter, "we would lack access to the foundational truths we require to be able to reason..." Thus, human nature is conformed to certain self-evident and ineradicable truths that allow it (human nature) to realize its potential.

The following passage caught my eye, because it too is a point I have often belabored: self-evident truths -- our innate cosmic principles -- are not arrived at by logic per se, but are the very basis of logic.

In other words, a thing cannot be true merely because it is logical, but rather, logical because true; obviously Truth is higher than logic -- one reason why Truth manifests in any number of extra- or translogical ways.

Again, the truths we are discussing are not "conclusions" but perceptions; we don't shine the light of intelligence upon them, because they are that light (i.e., intelligence is ultimately composed of the light it is able to discern). Analogously, although the moon gives off light, you wouldn't use the light of the moon to try to illuminate the sun. For those of you living in Rio Linda, reason is the moon, truth the sun.

The Founders wrote our Constitution in such a way that any person using his God-given common sense could understand it. Which is why you have to be a constitutional scholar in order to twist it to the nonsensical ends of the left.

21 comments:

Robert Curry said...

Bob,

Wow! I'm impressed. This is really good work, an excellent example of common sense philosophy.

Best wishes

Roy Lofquist said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,"

Gagdad Bob said...

Truths without which truth is impossible.

Reminds me of a crack by Chesterton: "There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped."

julie said...

Right away you can see why this wouldn't appeal to the tenured, as their whole mystique is based upon the essentially gnostic idea that they possess some special knowledge inaccessible to the restavus. Therefore, common sense realism blows their cover and reveals them as the phonies and frauds they are, without so much as a fig leaf of credibility to cover what amounts to a naked will to power.

"But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?"

The more things change...

Anonymous said...

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Gagdad Bob said...

Woodrow Wilson is still spewing his nonsense.

julie said...

Isn't that cute? Anon thinks we're more enlightened now.

Anonymous said...

Sorry guys, my bad.

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

-Thomas Jefferson.

julie said...

Nobody ever said Thomas Jefferson was right about everything.

River Cocytus said...

Despite the mocking of anons, it is a problem reconciling our constitution with the present world.

But it's not as simple as they'd have it, you can't just throw it out. Governance requires legitimacy and custom, and a society without a history of strongman coups has a long row to hoe trying to toss out documents that enshrine established traditions. Even if our country DID have such a history, it wouldn't solve the real problem which is producing something *better* than the previous government, which history shows is a non-trivial problem.

For example, the institution of constitutional law means that a common sense approach to our constitution by the average person is almost impossible; who can know what circumstance generated certain interpretations and, indeed, lemma-like structures that perch hidden upon its statements?

For example, most people think that Roe v Wade is the important judgement to be reversed, but a lawyer I know explained to me that there are later cases that are in fact more germane, meaning that in fact most people don't know what they're talking about, but it's hard to blame them (that's constitutional law for you!)

Common law itself seems to contain certain contradictions in this regard: it is based on common sense judgments about cases for which established laws did not exist. But judgments need not be based on common sense, and further some judgments are made in crises which we have forgotten and if we remembered might make more sense; but the sum appears to be that it can just become a byzantine (in the negative sense) system of judgments and counter-judgments which as a whole make little sense at all.

I suppose the question (and the Jefferson quote relates to it) is what is the core of the Constitutional idea, and what must needs change with the times? As an example, the style of language in the Constitution isn't essential to it, and could be updated without harming its meaning, i.e.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

could be realized as

Whereas we recognize that an armed citizenry is required for a state of freemen to remain secure, the right of citizens to possess, carry and use military armaments shall not be restricted.

Which carries the sense of the original, the only problem being "who gets to do the translation."

With 50 states is it possible for conventions to alter the Constitution as necessary at all?

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr. Godwin and panel:

This post is a treat, well-crafted and convincing. But, I am not convinced. In fact I refute the whole of it.

Anon 10:43, direct hit, well done. I salute you.

Dr. Godwin, the person whose underlying assumptions are off course is plainly yourself.

There is nothing wrong with Academia today, in fact there was nothing wrong with it in the past either. Today's and yesterday's graduates are quite well-equipped in whatever discipline they may be in.

It is evident you secretly harbored a desire to be a tenured faculty member, and somehow this desire was foiled. Now you drive your agenda with a festering resentment against those who succeeded where you failed.

I am a tenured professor in no less than eight disciples including political science, with 40 years of experience. It took a lot of perseverance and focus to achieve what I have done, and I won't have you spewing your envious venom without check.

I am also a registered Republican gun owner and Trump supporter. So tell me exactly where you get off with this line of insults regarding leftism. What, do you think you know us all? Well?

C. A., Wharton Professor

Anonymous said...

Hello River C

Your thoughtful comment is well taken. I see your point exactly. Common sense needs to be applied towards keeping the Constitution usable, in a way which will not degrade the core concepts.

Our nation already restricts citizens from owning implements of war including hand grenades, mortars, howitzers, and missiles. Inarguably this is an infringement of our right to bear arms and something should be done to remedy it. Why hasn't there been an outcry against this infringement in the past? It is mystifying. We've all just taken it in stride, brainwashed.

The 2nd Amendment re-wording you suggested should be beefed up to ensure ownership of all categories of arms shall be protected, not just small arms.

Who is with me on this?

Anonymous said...

Anon, sorry I didn’t previously believe you that she’d ever been legit, but seriously... Those kinds of reactions have been far more common than rash oversight could explain.

Re: The 2nd Amendment. We all know that AI drones out of Cheyenne Mountain style complexes firing GAU-8 would be no match for Wolverines! armed with Winchesters. Haven’t you heard of David and Goliath? (say... a giant slingshot?)

But seriously, every POTUS and Congress since Clinton has been expanding on Project Echelon style technologies regardless of the animal they rode in on. My sociological take: as common technologies and populations increase and corporate loyalties (to and from) decrease, the technology to keep said population under control also must increase. But so also must the agitprop aimed to keep the masses ignorant about what would face them should they revolt. Therefore we have the 2nd Amendment “controversy”. Maybe it really is just all an NRA lobby scam, but “plans within plans” is how it’s been done for centuries.

Anonymous said...

That being said, shouldn't it all be about:

Conservative Common Sense Principles (and fiscal responsibility) -vs- Wild Progressive Ideas about what to do about massive socio-technological changes?

As we now have it, there is no debate only mexican standoffs. (the term "mexican standoff" is currently under reconsideration by the international English Masters Council for potential revision to "yankee cowboy lemming standoff".

Would Jefferson agree? I have George Washington and Benjamin Franklin quotes as well, if desired.

River Cocytus said...

Anon, it's actually worse than you suggest - well regulated means organized and trained. In practice a country without a standing army requires its private or local-public organizations of armed citizens to secure the state.

As for your comment about military arms not seeming to be allowed, wrong again! Two facts for you to chew one concerning American arm ownership:

1. Warships and cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned and continued to be so after the war (provided they survived)

2. At present you can own a working tank (it's expensive, though!) or pretty much all armaments, though licensing is required for things like M249 SAW (a fully automatic heavy machine gun.)

So if anything my restatement of the 2nd amendment is not quite forceful enough.

But what government would be foolish enough to assume organized bands of trained and armed citizens wouldn't just revolt? In fact, if you know a bit about human society, bands of armed freemen in fact are generally defenders and preservers of the state, as they are asset holders and desire the continuation of the status quo. For an example of how this is true (which you may not have known) in history, consider the Whiskey Rebellion. It is in fact more likely that armed and organized citizen militias (note: not SELECT militias, which is what liberals ironically think it means) will support the state rather than resist it or revolt against it.

The background context of Blackstone - about armament of citizens being the only assurance against oppression - is largely true, but the American tends to understate the point at which these organized militias would fight back, and to what degree. There are some circumstances in the late Roman Empire which suggest that even organized militias would not stand up against a standing army very well, but, the main function they have is to deter petty oppression by emasculated bureaucrats, mobsters and rebble-rousers. Twain will do you good on that bit.

The left's procedure for citizen armament/disarmament is different, they wish to disarm the middle and upper classes, who will support the state which supports their liberty and security, and arm the dispossessed masses (and themselves) who will proceed to use those weapons to wreck and tear down the existing order (Maoism.)

But go off my lad

Van Harvey said...

"Before reading Common Sense Nation, I had never heard of the philosopher Thomas Reid, the intrepid discoverer of Common Sense. Prior to him, no one had any or knew what it was. It was as if the whole world were populated by MSNBC hosts."

And that MSNBC Worthy Talking deadHead, J.S.Mill, targeted Reid's school of thought with a vengeance via one of his followers, Hamilton, in an effort to make the world safe for Positivism, Utilitarianism and Socialism (but I repeat myself), with every cheap, anti-hierarchical, infra-rational trick he could hurl at common sense, and helped ensure a future that would be safe for MSNBC.

Everytime someone praises Mill's "On Liberty", as if it promoted anything but it's eradication... blech.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse "my bad"

Indeed. Although, excepting perhaps in eloquence, I much prefer John Adams & James Madison, to Thomas Jefferson, seeing an anniny quoting him is akin to the devil writing scripture: the purification of Truth, into lie, by omission of word and context. Jefferson, like his buddy Thomas Paine, was a idealizer of 'the people!', and as such never grasped the Senate or why the French Revolution was doomed for mass slaughter, from the very start. However, he was in no way hinting or stating that all law was merely popular rules of the moment, to be changed on majority whim, or in any way separable from principle. He did think that standard legislation should expire within a generation (and I tend to agree), but he did not intend that the bedrock principles - such as the 2nd Amendment - was subject to the same... in fact, his whole point was that the sausage of daily legislation should be reevaluated frequently, because it often contained errors and divergences from those eternal principles that do not change or become outgrown.

From the same letter as aninny's partial quote:

"...But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people. If experience be called for, appeal to that of our fifteen or twenty governments [7] for forty years, and show me where the people have done half the mischief in these forty years, that a single despot would have done in a single year; or show half the riots and rebellions, the crimes and the punishments, which have taken place in any single nation, under kingly government, during the same period. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature to a convenient number for full, but orderly discussion. Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election. Submit them to approbation or rejection at short intervals. Let the executive be chosen in the same way, and for the same term, by those whose agent he is to be; and leave no screen of a council behind which to skulk from responsibility. It has been thought that the people are not competent electors of judges learned in the law. But I do not know that this is true, and, if doubtful, we should follow principle..."





Van Harvey said...

River Cocytus said..."Despite the mocking of anons, it is a problem reconciling our constitution with the present world."

You're sounding all wet lately Riv, what's up? Are you saying that the 'modern world' is something that our Constitution and the timeless concepts and principles of it, should bother trying trying to reconcile with? Or that 'people today' are somehow less human than of yesteryear?

Anonymous said...

Van,

Why did most founders own slaves? And why didn't they grant the vote to those outside the white landowning male class?

Had these been truly great men of "timeless concepts" there wouldn't have been that level of confusion right from the get go. Great men live what they believe do they not?

I eagerly await your sanctioned rationalization.

Van Harvey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse squeaked "Why did most founders own slaves?"

If Individual Rights are meaningless constructs, what does it matter? Why is it a concern of yours? If 'Individual Rights' are 'nonsense upon stilts' and Power is all that matters, why even concern yourself with the question?

"And why didn't they grant the vote to those outside the white landowning male class?" Careful, if you actually cared about the question you're asking, you might find yourself bothering with looking into the actual historical facts, and then you'd be confronted with the problem of Black property owners and slave holders - even in the South. But to address the fragment of value in your question, the Founder's for the most part qualified the ability to vote, upon those who could show a minimum level of responsibility and concern for the policies of the polity, upon some proof of that, which was most easily measured by how much property they did, or didn't, have. The nugget of which, IMHO, we've suffered greatly from its loss - admittedly though, it'd be extremely problematic to identify and track what qualified as having a minimum stake in the community today, and is likely unworkable. But....

"Had these been truly great men of "timeless concepts" there wouldn't have been that level of confusion right from the get go" Because they were truly great men who actually understood and valued those timeless concepts, they, despite the obvious implications to their own wealth and livelihoods, pursued, fought for, and established a system which was designed to eliminate the system of slavery which Britain had saddled them with (read the Declaration of Independence sometime). While I do chide them for not having the courage to eliminate it then and there (as Jefferson and many others attempted - and several states did ban slavery in their constitutions following the Declaration of Independence), they settled at the Federal level upon phasing the 'peculiar institution' out over time.

Frederick Douglass once bought into the falsehoods you're peddling, but because he was a person who engaged in thinking in order to understand what was true, moved past the silly lies of folks like yourself, and discovered the Truth which such vile falsehoods as yours seek to smother and erase. If you have any guts or interest in what is good and true, you'll give Douglass's essay careful consideration.


Of course when that time came, the South had already moved so far away from the founding ideals as to try and justify denying individual rights (Democrats through and through), that the end result was Civil War. It would have been nice if the pro-regressives had left their dream of power unrestrained by individual rights stay dead, but... back to the mire they go.

Enlightened being out of the question for an aninnymouse, I hope you are at least entertained.

Theme Song

Theme Song