Our subject is the basis of Authority, which I suppose is a more folksy way of talking about ontology and epistemology: of what is and on what basis we can claim to know it: being and knowing, reality and truth.
This (philosophizing) has been going on a long time -- ever since Homo sapiens elbowed ahead of the pack some 60,000 years ago -- except that western man took a u-turn roughly 400 years ago. In those centuries, the journey back to intellectual barbarism has resembled that of the mythical oozlum bird, which flies in ever-decreasing circles until it disappears up its own rectum.
Which is where most contemporary philosophy stands today: in the darkness and tyranny of relativism. Ontologically and epistemologically speaking, it isn't possible to fall any lower than this, although of course the ongoing results cannot be known in advance: an endless apocaloop of The horror!
For this is a form of politico-intellectual Calvinball, such that there is no stable ground because the rules keep changing moment by moment, based upon the needs of the left. Which is why it is always an error to call the left "hypocritical." Rather, they aren't even hypocritical, because there is no fixed rule to violate.
Or, there is a kind of faux-stability, in the sense, for example, that the left is always "for the little guy," even when they are robbing and killing the little guy. They are always "for the planet," even when they render it more unlivable, and they are always "for the victim" even when countless citizens are being victimized by these sainted victims.
Anyway, no one is saying your philosophy has to be perfect, or that you have to know everything about everything. Besides, that's impossible. But there are rules, as in any sport.
Or better, there are the rules that render the game possible, and then there are the rules -- the strategy -- for winning the game. The latter exist because the outcome of the game is intrinsically uncertain, which in turn has to do with the one-way direction of time.
This is one of Hayek's main points about the irreducible complexity of the Great Society and the impossibility of manufacturing this or that outcome, or of knowing it before it happens.
Rather, the best we can do is legislate clear and unambiguous rules about the conduct of the game, and then leave the rest to personal strategy based upon knowledge on the ground of changing circumstances.
You Will Have Noticed that leftism is founded on the conflation of rules and strategy, and the seductive delusion that tweaking a rule can result in an outcome that can be known with certainty. This is now called "equity," but it's really just a new name for cheating and taking what doesn't belong to you.
But the left has become so intellectually lazy (minus the intellect) that they no longer even bother to pretend they can bring about the outcome they want. Rather, they just engage in word magic such as the Inflation Reduction Act. This is sufficient to satisfy the rubes (beginning with the media) -- just as it was enough to call previous delusions Obamacare, or Build Back Better, or the American Jobs Act, etc., etc.
The title of this post alludes to a concept in developmental psychology called "good enough mothering," popularized by the psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott. Speaking of word magic, I see that Wokipedia has changed the entry to "good enough parent." God forbid we trigger any birthing people!
Perhaps I should change our title to Good Enough Opinion, but that would only enable self-deception, lying, and tenure.
Of what does a good enough philosophy consist? What is the bare minimum, such that any philosophy that fails to reflect this bare minimum results in error on a grandiose scale, due to the principle (itself part of the Bare Minimum) that a small mistake at the beginning redounds to a big one at the end?
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment