Something I had not really thought about but makes sense when you think about it, the ancients had a very different version of liberty than we do today, as a result of them being small homogenous cultures for the most part, and us having many different folks living together. Ancient liberty required a much more direct involvement in government, and allowed for one religious view, broadly accounted for, in government. Modern liberty, due to our commercial nature, is found in indirect government and freedom from interference.

Labels: philosophy, politics

An interesting author by the name of Manent traces the trendy idea of rights back to its source in Hobbes, and notes that

If you teach human beings to assert their rights, but deny any natural standards by which to judge the rightness of their actions, you unleash an endless quest for rights not governed by any intelligible principle—a quest that sows confusion at all levels of society.

Manent also suggests some ways to return to a more fruitful political conception.

Labels: history, philosophy, politics

In 1790, when Edmund Burke wrote his classic essay, Reflections on the Revolution in France, the reactions were not positive. He was not popular among the London elites, to say the least. As L.G. Mitchell recounts, “Burke was rejected right across the political spectrum.” Not only did radicals such as Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft “dislike the book,” but the members of his own Whig party disowned it: Charles James Fox considered the Reflections “to be in very bad taste” and the future Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger found only “rhapsodies in which there is much to admire and nothing to agree with.”

Yet Burke, the reform-minded statesman, decided to stand against the proclamations of the French Revolution. Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity—who would want to be against that? Burke, apparently. And he prophesied the coming Terror and the rise of Napoleon, because he refused to give in to the tyrannical dictates of eighteenth-century deified Reason.

Burke was right, and Reason was wrong. One suspects it will happen again.

Labels: marriage, philosophy, trends

Hahaha. Hey, at least I laugh at my own jokes.

Labels: humor, philosophy

It is quite fascinating.

Labels: catholic, philosophy, religion

Only if you render the word "meaning" meaningless.

If consciousness is just a mirage produced by chemical reactions in our brains, and if the mirage permanently flickers out on the day those reactions cease, then do any of our conscious thoughts really matter? Sure, you can have an impact on others who will live on after you die, but one day they will disappear into thin air too. To my mind, all this talk of valuable life experiences adding up to something meaningful is like talking about how to make X add up to something meaningful in the above equation. In the end, it’s all for naught.

Labels: philosophy, religion

Sooner or later that points us back to something that is not merely *a* being but is Being itself: something that simply Is. All created contingent beings participate in and are sustained by the God who is Being. As Mike Flynn points out, if such self-existent Being could talk, it would say, "I AM." And by a strange coincidence, that is exactly how the God of some seriously philosophically-unsophisticated semitic Bronze Age shepherds introduced himself to them in Exodus 3. It's almost as though they were the recipients of revelation or something.

Points out Mark Shea.

Labels: philosophy, religion

Neither, of course.

Every once in a while we face the question: Should we be conservative or progressive. Limits have been well established: no one who identifies with conservatism will promote any idea related to progressivism and vice versa. This has created a huge polarization in our societies.

Does this have any logic? Apparently we are being victims of a sort of mechanical way of thinking, maybe a binary system of yes or no with no other choices. We tend to classify people, even ourselves, in one of these two groups. When speaking about morality, economics, politics or religion, the gaps between conservatism and progressivism grow even more.

Labels: philosophy, politics

An excellent review of what is hopefully an excellent book.

Why does this straight-talking woman cause these men to cower? These sophisticates have no purpose in life other than pure research (the engineer uses the space technology he advances for low and hilarious purposes of personal gratification.) Their knowledge of science does not include any notion of final causes or purpose, teleology, and self-knowledge. And in this they reflect the blindness of the modern age generally.

The philosophic and theological premises of the modern age are explored by just-retired Georgetown University political theorist James V. Schall, S.J., in his latest book, The Modern Age.

Also includes references to the Big Bang Theory. A fine book review.

Labels: philosophy, religion, science

An explanation from Popehat on how many people fail to reason correctly, summed up with the title X → Y; I don't like Y; therefore ! X

Instead of starting with the facts on the ground and then reasoning forward towards conclusions, he would start with conclusions and then reason backwards to what the facts on the ground must be.

The older I've gotten, the more I realize that there's a lot of that going on.

Labels: philosophy, psychology

The most useful line I learned in five years of studying the philosophy of a Jesuit named Bernard Lonergan was, "I don't have enough data to make a judgement."

From SS, and something that I often say when someone tries to force an opinion out of me on a subject that I don't know much about.

Labels: philosophy, quotes

Prof. Unger, discussing Iran:

Of course, any nation is entitled to use force to defend itself against an attack by another nation. It might also be acceptable under international law to initiate violent defensive measures in response to an imminent attack by another nation, altho there may be disputes about exactly what constitutes imminence.

But an attack cannot be justified by a claim that the victim has acquired the means for attacking another nation. This would, under any reasonable interpretation of international law, be considered an act of aggression. Such an argument would legitimate an attack on the US by any nation[Emphasis is mine], since we obviously are capable of attacking any other nation. Of course it is even more indefensible to attack a nation on the grounds that it is planning to acquire the means for attacking another nation a few years from now.

[Emphasis is mine] Yes, yes it would.

Labels: philosophy, politics

An interesting look at whether the dead are outside of time when they are (hopefully) in heaven. But we need to wait until tomorrow for the answers.

Labels: philosophy, religion

But they understood that “libertatum” is the word that matters. Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing, the “right of access to a free placement service” (to quote the European Constitution’s “rights” for workers).

Two concepts and one word. Always a dangerous situation.

Labels: philosophy, trends

Expand your mind as the bright lights of MathOverflow discuss the value of proofs.

As a person who has been spending significant time to learn mathematics, I have to admit that I sometimes find the fact uncovered by Godel very upsetting: we never can know that our axiom system is consistent. The consistency of ZFC can only be proved in a larger system, whose consistency is unknown.

Labels: math, philosophy

Today I declare war on dubious uses of words. The most common issue I see is with the word "nonplussed", which in fact means bewildered but which people use to mean, I guess, "not plussed", except that plussed is not a word, alas.

Exhibit A:

They're super messy. Sauce ends up on your hands, your face, and very often your friend's couch. As a host, you want to order wings but you know your friends have the dexterity and cleanliness of a kindergartner. This typically doesn't go over well with your already nonplussed Significant Other.

I declare this war for two reasons.

Firstly, I think it is important for words to have meanings, so that we can have discussions.

Secondly, every time I try to parse a sentence with "nonplussed" in it, it takes me about a minute to try to figure out what in the world the author means. For example, here I was wondering why the spouse was bewildered.

On a side note, Wikipedia says that the word refute is now of disputed usage. I have never heard it mean anything other than to "deny with reasoned argument", but apparently now it just means to disagree with someone? What nonsense. We already have a word that means that - "disagree".

Now we must ask if this war is a just war. Well, there are a bunch of traditional criteria for jus ad bellum.

Just cause - Certainly met. We can't have language disintegrating on us.

Proper authority - degree from a prestigious institution, know a few English majors. Close enough.

Right intention - For sure.

Reasonable prospect of success - debatable, but I think if we publicly shame people who do stuff like this, treat them like cigarette smokers (no incorrect usages of nonplussed allowed within 25 feet of this building!) we can win.

Proportionality - In my opinion, quite proportional.

Last resort - I've tried gentle correction, but it just doesn't work! I'm at wit's end here.

So I extend this invitation to all those who love freedom and being able to understand what other people are saying. Remember you're either with me or against me.

Labels: nonplussed and friends, philosophy, words

The idea that there is no limit to the powers of the legislator is in part a result of popular sovereignty and democratic government. It has been strengthened by the belief that, so long as all actions of the state are duly authorized by legislation, the Rule of Law will be preserved. But this is completely to misconceive the meaning of the Rule of Law. This rule has little to do with the question whether all actions of government are legal in the juridical sense. They may well be and yet not conform to the Rule of Law.

. . . .

To say that in a planned society the Rule of Law cannot hold is, therefore, not to say that the actions of the government will not be legal or that such a society will necessarily be lawless. It means only that the use of the government's coercive powers will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can, and to make a central direction of economic activity possible must, legalize what ot all intends and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal -- but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.

The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2), p. 119. (978-0-226-32055-7)

In my CC class (hi Naomi) we once had a debate over whether the (US) Constitution was a purely formal document or whether it prescribed a certain sort of government, rather than a certain form. I believe the conclusion was that while only a form was required, the form was senseless without a certain set of assumptions or values. So carrying out the motions required by the Constitution without holding to the prerequisite values would be sort of like taking the choreography from "West Side Story" and dancing it to the music of "42nd Street". You wouldn't really be getting much out of it.

A similar idea, I think, with the "Rule of Law". Just because a legislator has passed a bunch of laws doesn't mean that the result is the sort of state that is traditionally associated with free nations.

Labels: philosophy, politics

Perry’s position in favor of states’ rights based upon the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution extends also to abortion, even though he is himself pro-life. ABC reports that Perry indicated to reporters in Houston that states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to legalize or ban abortion if Roe were overturned.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” said Perry. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”

Wow, a bold and well-reasoned statement. I had just despaired of ever hearing one from a politician.

Labels: philosophy, politics

Brilliant!

Labels: philosophy

Mr. Paul, meanwhile, found himself hurtling into the past when, responding to questions from Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, he expressed philosophical reservations about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically the provision that forced private businesses to integrate. (Later, he amended that position, saying he would have supported the act anyway.)

The ensuing cries of racism probably made perfect sense to those who lived through the ’60s. After all, if a white Southerner in 1964 opposed integration on constitutional grounds, odds were pretty good that bigotry was a motivating factor. And yet the national conversation around racism and its remedies today is considerably more nuanced than it was 50 years ago — or even 10 years ago.

Now Tiger Woods plays annually at Augusta, historically an all-white club. The African-American president of the United States has said that his own relatively privileged daughters should not benefit from affirmative action programs when applying to college. Americans the president’s age and younger are inclined to assume that one can question the responsibilities of government and private entities when it comes to race without necessarily being dismissed as a racist — even if it does make them, as in the case of Mr. Paul, something of an ideological outlier.

Just because a policy achieves some good, doesn't mean that the policy is good, and it should be OK to discuss the means without being accused of disliking the ends.

Labels: philosophy, politics