Continuing with yesterday's theme of the possible, impossible, and necessary, a being of reason
is an object, which neither does nor can exist except in the mind in the capacity of object. You have in this definition all you need in order never to do what has been done by so many people: to confuse a being of reason with a psychological reality.
Really? I would qualify this to say "all you need" logically. The will, of course, doesn't care about this constraint on existence; the first and last question of the left is always, What does impossibility have to do with it?
Or, to paraphrase Bobby Kennedy, Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that can never be, and say, why not? As long as it's not in my backyard, and besides, it's not my money.
Progressivism either runs roughshod over logic or confines itself to logic (AKA rationalization), depending on the needs of the moment.
Many examples come to mind -- say, if a woman aborts a viable fetus, it's a victory for Choice, whereas if she is murdered along with the baby, it's a double homicide. Logic, of course, demands a single definition, but if the left obeyed this principle, it would be suicidal to their cause. And suicide is wrong!
I'm thinking too of how Brandon pretends to reduce inflation by printing more money. Or fight street crime by not prosecuting it. Or conjure an insurrection by prosecuting one. Or eliminate racism by engaging in it, or address "climate change" by making it more difficult to survive the climate. The list goes on.
Logic is surrounded by neighbors that have absolutely no scruples.... These neighbors of logic are always ready to swallow it up (Simon).
Like a bad neighbor, state harm is there.
Has your logic ever been devoured by a being of reason? Of course it has. None of us is exempt from Genesis 3. I remember back in the '80s, being passionately "anti-nuclear." What was that all about, really?
Whatever the case may be, it "succeeded" here in California, which once again demonstrates how unreality has very real effects.
Say what you want about the Impossible, its impact on reality is undeniable, especially when taken up by a collective. Delusions in individuals are relatively harmless, but a state motivated by one is a Monster. I don't believe in Orcs. I only try to avoid them. They won't let you ignore them.
Back to those beings of reason per se. Again, they represent an ambiguous category, since they are obviously real -- they exist -- only not in the external world; they aren't contradictory as such, although it would be contradictory to suppose them capable of existence in the world.
Ignoramuses may take it to designate psychological realities, but a psychological reality is a real being of a particular kind that is just as real as anything else.
I suppose one of the problems is that you can't really destroy a being of reason. For example, you can't burn down pi, or an inch, or a syllogism; but nor can you burn down Marxism, feminism, or queer theory. You can't even touch them, since they aren't things, only objects of thought.
Yesterday we brought Hayek into the discussion, and the following passage might have been written by him:
Note that the same sort of person who puts his faith in top-down social control is likely to dismiss the reality of free will, which is grounded in our transcendent capacity to choose between good and evil, truth and falsehood -- or what Eliot described as people who dream of systems so perfect that no one needs to be good.
Between physical and social causality the difference is such that the concept of social engineer simply does not admit of being transferred from the physical to the social order. The undine, the zombie, and the social engineer are so many beings of reason with no foundation in the real world (Simon).