tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-323625512024-03-14T03:34:07.909-05:00BlogodidactSeeking after the Education that our Schools are unable to provideVan Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger798125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-60917263999759032942024-02-29T11:37:00.007-06:002024-03-06T09:23:53.463-06:00Why are our Culture Wars focused upon winning battles instead of winning the war - where's our Gen. Sherman?!
<div style="border: 1px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 1px; margin-right: 1px; margin-top: 1px; padding: 1px; width: 45%;"><blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“...all knowledge that is divorced from justice [must] be called cunning rather than wisdom...”
— <a href="https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0048%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D63" target="_blank">Cicero</a></span></em></blockquote></div>
So... strategy. I'm not a big strategist myself, but I do get some of the basics. Like, the point of strategy & tactics is ultimately to win, and that using your opponent's strategy & tactics that are designed to ensure you lose, won't help you to win. Pretty basic stuff. So why do so many who are to the right of the...[what, Left? Woke? Modernists? Establishment? Ah, here's a term that entails them all:] Pro-Regressives, fail to grasp that? In our Culture War's battle of ideas today, too many enter the argumentative fray to '<i>own 'em!</i>' and accumulate 'likes', clicks, and glory, unaware that their strategy & tactics are utilizing those that were developed by their opponents to oppose them with, the effects of which they'll use to launch new attacks with that will always be one step ahead of the losing side - ours.
<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvY6O40zNLy-E-TpwQHBm4FgN73L8icAN-HfQQcCf5EPWYkwnsNmXbeVWyL_-OVPZZSpe6jHpcmtzXkn41AMPZepcAzt995bgloP_pfFiAiV-LyjdJf4C17W_MQfEf_iaCDAFtYOwn0P8D2yQK-Nu_ECEGcugbUf9F8iYRLe6vOJa9rWtDrlnNiA/s1470/BeLikeGenSherman_BurnEmToTheGround.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1042" data-original-width="1470" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvY6O40zNLy-E-TpwQHBm4FgN73L8icAN-HfQQcCf5EPWYkwnsNmXbeVWyL_-OVPZZSpe6jHpcmtzXkn41AMPZepcAzt995bgloP_pfFiAiV-LyjdJf4C17W_MQfEf_iaCDAFtYOwn0P8D2yQK-Nu_ECEGcugbUf9F8iYRLe6vOJa9rWtDrlnNiA/w400-h284/BeLikeGenSherman_BurnEmToTheGround.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Why does the Right's approach to strategy and tactics in our Culture Wars today, differ so much from how winning strategies & tactics were developed in, say, our Civil War? At the start of <i>that</i> war, the strategy of the establishment favorite Gen. McClellan, looked good on paper, seemed sensible, popular, and sure to hold this or that piece of ground and win glory for the Union. However as it soon proved to be effective only at producing loss after loss as Gen. Lee chewed the North's ground up and spat them back out upon it, the Union's strategy & strategists were soon changed. Gen. Grant, elevated because 'at least he fights', began utilizing the North's greater ability to absorb casualties to win battles, but he soon realized that his '<a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hanson-battle.html">terrible arithmetic</a>' was primarily leading towards more and more battles, rather than to ending the war, so he listened to Gen. Sherman's idea that the path to victory lay in identifying & eliminating the Confederacy's ability to stand and fight against them, and despite there being little popularity or glory in battling agriculture, plantation houses, and morale, he began burning them to the ground in his "<a href="https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/william-t-sherman#section_7">March to the sea</a>", and so brought about a swift end to the war.
<br /><br />
That is <i>not</i> how strategy & tactics have progressed in our Culture Wars today. We're still using the 'good on paper' establishment strategies of textbooks, testing, and 'choice', that Pro-Regressives have been chewing up & spitting out The West with, for a decade of decades. And though the recent parents' revolt against CRT & SEL seemed for a moment to be an indication that we'd taken a Gen. Grant-like turn to at least start fighting, beyond a handful of parents and grassroots groups, few others are following their lead. Instead, most others attitude seems to be that given a choice between doing the work of identifying and burning down what sustains the Woke confederacy, or posturing about with ineffective strategies & tactics that bring popularity, clicks, and glory, most today choose clicks & glory.
<br /><br />
Why? Maybe because they aren't as far to the right of the Pro-Regressives as they imagine themselves to be?
<br /><br />
The main issue thought, is that there's work to be done before we can begin burning down what sustains the Pro-Regressives, beginning with learning to identify what it is that needs to be burned down - not to mention separating ourselves from it. So, what is it that sustains the modern Pro-Regressives, is it Academia? Entertainment? Media? The Administrative State? Our school systems? Those are all important grounds that have been captured, no doubt about it, but what we need to begin publicly targeting and burning to the ground, IMHO, is what gave the illusion of legitimacy to those pro-regressive ideals and positions which enabled those grounds to be captured in the first place.
<br /><br />
What it was that enabled the typical American to first begin accepting those positions as seemingly credible, is modern Epistemology; it is what provides the illusion of legitimacy and credibility to those ideas that fuel and sustain the Pro-Regressives' positions to this day. But as laying its falsehoods bare for all to see is even more lacking in glory than battling against agriculture ever was, glorious or not, it is the unexamined lie which lies within the heart of modern epistemology which sustains the legions of ideologies that they've swamped our culture with.
<br /><br />
End that, and the Pro-Regressives' ability to project power over others - be they from the Left, Woke, Modernists, Establishment, or others - ends with it.
<br /><br />
Doing that effectively will require our consistently subjecting their premises to an <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/11/enlightening-dark-ages-once-again.html">epistemology of metaphysics</a> (what is), logic (what follows), and ethics (what, if anything, should be done about it), in order to expose their true nature to such widespread public ridicule, that they won't dare to speak openly of them again, and so bring the Culture Wars to an end.
<br /><br />
Few have shown any interest in even bothering to identify what sustains the Pro-Regressives, and not a few are actively using and even unwittingly (?) promoting the opposition's strategies & tactics, which can only work against their own, and they do so without a care in the world.
<br /><br />
Why?
<br /><br />
Possibly because they either don't see its connection to what sustains those who see them as their enemies (details to follow), or they don't really think such things matter, and <i>that's</i> a big part of what sustains the Culture War they're waging against us. Unfortunately as the habits of modern epistemology have been engrained in us through 12-16 years of schooling, it escapes our attention how much time & energy we waste in furthering those strategies & tactics that were <i>designed</i> to waste our time and energy, and so most of us unwittingly end up giving aid and comfort to ideals & positions that are actively undermining the very ground we're trying to make our stand upon, while our side just stares in amazement as both the positions and grounds we'd been clinging to, are progressively lost.
<br /><br />
What first brought this to mind was seeing another fruitless exchange several months ago from someone nominally on 'my side' doing just that, and then something recently that was unlooked for and out of the blue where several people of national and even worldwide prominence, casually employed a Sherman-like strategy that burned the positions of the person confronting them, <i>to the ground</i>, in front of their peers and the general public. They were glorious moments, that, unfortunately seem to have been brushed off as amusing 'hot takes' which no one else seems to see anything of significance in, and so I'll do what I can to bring the attention of as many people to them as I can.
<br /><br />
First to the worst, with a moment of despair from a few months ago when in a comment thread that'd been highlighted in my newsfeed under a post against "<i>people "deconstructing" their faith</i>", an fb 'friend', JR, whose libertarianish positions have occasionally aligned with mine (though rarely deeper than a 'Yes' or 'No' on an issue), was making comments that were directly advancing the strategies & tactics of those who're opposed to his positions, and was succeeding in burning nothing to the ground but time.
<br /><br />
The post itself was too focused upon sectarian issues for my tastes, but the thread of his that'd been highlighted in my feed drew a painful lol from me with his comment that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Deconstruction of one’s religious beliefs is simply critically examining what you believe."</span></em></blockquote>
, apparently entirely unaware that he was using and promoting one of the primary ideological weapons of those opposed to his notions of 'liberty', which can only advance their positions & goals while undermining those he believes himself to support. What gave away the fact that JR had no idea what he was advising people to engage in, was signaled by a single word:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...simply..."</span></em></blockquote>
, as it doesn't take much familiarity with the literature of the deconstructionists to realize that 'simply', simply does not apply to the methods of 'Deconstruction', which deliberately utilize the most difficult, convoluted, and opaque language possible, to make obscure points that are famously difficult to even identify, let alone 'understand'.
<br /><br />
Why'd JR have no issue 'simply' using the term 'Deconstruction' without understanding what it means (a point he later unconcernedly admitted to)? My guess would be that he <i>assumed</i> it to be just one of many legitimate means for examining an issue to better understand it, possibly because of what he assumed he knew of 'Deconstructionism', had come from one of those 'humanities 101' courses that engineering and business students are required to take, which present their convoluted and confused ideas as being the height of modern intellectual engagement. If so, perhaps his good intentions and false assumptions about what it <i>probably</i> meant, outweighed any concerns being raised over the actual meaning of what it was he was advising other people to engage in.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, his assumption was at least as '<a href="https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-problematize/">problematic</a>' as it would be if he were to advocate for communist policies and statist controls to improve the Free Market with, on the basis of his intending such advice to be helpful. If a similar idea had been put to him in terms of Marxist economic theory, he'd doubtlessly have recognized it for what it was and spurned it right away, but because it comes from the 'soft' humanities, it apparently held no real meaning, importance, or concern for him (which is an epistemological legacy of the 'empirical' thinking he sadly prides himself on). The problem is that all such efforts give aid & comfort to the enemy of all that is worth valuing, and <i>cannot</i> avoid doing so, and our ignorance of this is one of many factors that have us continually shooting ourselves in the conceptual foot before any battle of ideas is even begun.
<br /><br />
For those who do take the trouble to read beyond the required reading list and venture into the Deconstructionist's founding theories and how it's been practiced, they'll find that the intent of its authors (one of whom authored a paper arguing that there is no such thing as an Author), is to artfully employ equivocation and fractured logic to disassemble and destroy any and every Western ideal and concept (hello: <i>de</i>-construct), not for the purposes of developing a better understanding of them, but for bringing about an end to the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian culture of The West. That <i>is</i> their stated purpose (see below) and it should not be excused, ignored, or forgotten.
<br /><br />
My problem with issues like these, is how do I condense a useful amount of the preceding into a comment that's brief enough to be read? And sadly, being the last one to look to for tips on brevity, I have no good answer to that. Still, with past interactions with JR in mind and not wanting to sidetracked either of us into a pointless skirmish that would have no winner, I still hoped that I could at least get him to give a bit more thought to what he was encouraging other people to get engaged in. For good or ill, I commented that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"If you think that Deconstruction is or can be positive, or is in anyway equivalent to carefully examining a subject - any subject - in order to understand it better... you really need to turn your analytical skills to the term 'Deconstruction'."</span></em></blockquote>
It's probably no great surprise that my comment was not well received by JR, but his reply to me provided a surprisingly good demonstration of the self-defeating nature inherent in battling with philosophical positions while epistemologically blind. How epistemologically blind a person is, can be guessed at by whether they treat the power of ideas seriously, or simply use them as ideological props to spar with - you can judge for yourself which one the three lines of his response most likely reflects:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 95%;"><ol>
<li>"<i>I am not interested in the semantics, so feel free to define that term as you see fit.</i>" - meaning that he believed that understanding the meaning of the term that <i>he'd used</i> and <i>advised</i> others to employ, wasn't meaningful to the discussion. Funnily enough, it's <i>his</i> misuse of the word 'semantics', that's typically meant by '<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/lets-argue-semantics">playing semantics</a>'. </li>
<br />
, which was followed by:<br />
<li>"<i>My interest is in the idea of critically examining ALL of one’s premises and where they came from and if you actually believe them and why</i>."
- IOW he's happy to doubt 'ALL' of <i>your</i> premises, but is unwilling or unable to question his own (which demonstrates what '<i>critically examining</i>' has always meant in practice. More on that in coming posts)</li>
<br />
, he then concluded with this punchline:<br />
<li>
<i>"I think that is both positive and necessary to avoid the kind of cognitive dissonance that is obvious in so many people."</i> - which takes a lack of philosophical self awareness to a new level.
</li>
</ol></span></blockquote>
I don't know that I could ask for a better demonstration of how failing to develop the habit of applying an epistemology of metaphysics (<i>what is</i>), logic (<i>does it follow</i>), and ethics (<i>what, if anything, should be done about it</i>), to the ideas you are thinking with in 'the real world', leaves a person unaware that their own thoughts have broken free from reality and are tripping up their pursuit of what it is that they claim to believe and value.
<br /><br />
It seemed likely that this was going nowhere fast, but keeping in mind that other people reading along might be persuaded to give the matter further consideration, I pointed out that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Semantics and philosophy are two very different things, and failing to recognize that will have you accepting and furthering premises that you never considered or thought to question. Your comment here is a fine case in point."</span></em></blockquote>
, and as you can imagine, not only did the tone not improve or turn him towards examining the term he misused, but he also took my questioning of his premises as an indication that <i>I</i> was the one who feared examining their own core beliefs. JR then doubled down on his statement, repeating that:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
"<i>Defining the term “Deconstruction” is semantics, and I will leave that to you and others.</i>" </span></blockquote>
Indeed. As noted, there is a problem with Semantics, but it doesn't come from paying too much attention to the meaning of words, it comes from ignoring their meaning and simply assuming that 'differences of semantics' are meaningless. That lackadaisical attitude is the very thing that is exploited through an especially effective and damaging tactic of post-modernists and deconstructionists, which has been identified as '<a href="https://archive.org/details/CharlotteThomsonIserbytTheDeliberateDumbingDownOfAmerica/page/n11/mode/2up?q=semantic+deception">Semantic Deception</a>' (also <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-semantic-deception-of-sel-social.html">the lead post</a> in my series on <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/SEL%20Presentation"> SEL & CRT</a>), which means:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Redefining terms to get agreement without understanding. Example: use of words that mean one thing to parents and another thing to change agents."</span></em></blockquote>
Semantics indeed. Failing to pay attention to what words mean, and what is being promoted by the bad actors who utilize them, as JR blithely did, is a significant feature of the chaotic mess our world is in today. <a href="https://literariness.org/2019/04/17/the-philosophy-of-jacques-derrida/#google_vignette">Post-Modernists and Deconstructionists</a> have used the tool of semantic deception for decades - it is what's been at work when parents hear their school's promise to teach their kids about Liberty, and assume that they'll learn about Liberty in the American context, while what they'll be teaching them will be in the context of 'liberating' students through the Marxist lens of the Brazilian Marxist <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/2022/05/your-kids-go-to-paulo-freires-marxist-schools/">Paulo Freire</a> (Freire's subversive books have been the most popular text in teachers colleges for the last 40 yrs).
<br /><br />
Worse still, blindly using words with double (and often malevolent) meanings, transforms those who imagine themselves to be neutral, or even opposed to what its concealed meaning serves (think 'diversity', 'equity', 'inclusion'), into the 'captured opposition' who unwittingly enable the solid ground that their position once held, to be infiltrated, undermined, and repurposed, into hostile ground (oh hi Harvard!).
<br /><br />
JR, as blind to the irony of his own words as he was to the epistemology that formed them for him, had the gall to conclude by asking me:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"<i>How do you define the term?</i>"</span></em></blockquote>
I was tempted to ask him how he defined 'define', but seeing no point in trading words with someone who finds no value in their meaning, I replied with a few of the points above for whoever else might be reading along, as well as a link to <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-deconstruction/">New Discourses</a> which gave a deeper explanation of how 'Deconstruction' operates as "<i>... a process of forcing the marriage of the truth to a lie...</i>", and I noted that unless he showed an interest in that, I'd leave JR to continue the thread on his own. He continued on in much the same manner, adding a lengthy criticism of my not providing him with a 'definition' - <i>seriously</i> - and he pointedly refused to look at the page I'd linked to. Had he bothered to follow the link, he would've found the definitions he sought, as well as further explanations of it from deconstructionists themselves, followed by commentary which analyzed those to convey the actual <i>meaning</i> of the term, which the self-serving definition's of the deconstructionist's <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-semantic-deception-of-sel-social.html">semantic deceptions</a>, intentionally leave out.
<br /><br />
<b>The failed strategy of doubtful definitions</b><br />Brushing off the meaning of words as 'mere semantics', and expecting definitions to make arguments for you - which they are not and cannot be - is a failed strategy. A <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition">definition</a> does not persuade or provide an argument, it only provides a high-level "...<i>statement expressing the essential nature of something</i>..." from someone presumed to have an authoritative knowledge of the subject, but what is accepted without questioning, is believed without understanding. Attempting to use a definition as an 'answer' to an argument that has not been made, is engaging in an '<i>argument from authority</i>' fallacy, which not only hinders understanding, but is likely to become the proverbial 'answer that kills the question'.
<br /><br />
Definitions can be used to raise a philosophical point, and they can, as I often do here, be used to indicate questions that need to be considered, but they can't <i>make</i> that philosophical point or pursue those questions for you, or install an understanding of its meaning in anyone's mind.
<br /><br />
Checking back on the thread one last time, I saw that JR had actually gone to <i>Wikipedia</i> to find a definition of 'deconstruction' that was friendly to his assumptions, and from that he astoundingly concluded that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“<i>Deconstruction</i>” and "<i>deconstructing religious beliefs</i>" was "<i>something completely different, as Wikipedia explains <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction#cite_ref-55">here</a>. Apparently the term was stolen and applied to Evangelistic Christianity.</i>"</span></em></blockquote>
, which further demonstrates how the problem of arguing by definitions has been compounded, as many such terms in our dictionary definitions have been defined or redefined to glide upon the politically correct winds of the day (see 'antiracist' and 'racist'), with academia's semantic deceptions worded in a wholesome manner to appeal to the general audience, while masking a very different esoteric and activist meaning for 'those who know best'.
<br /><br />
Bad as that and his interpretation of it was, even those who're wise enough to prefer dictionaries to Wikipedia, will typically find 'Deconstruction' being defined, as <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstruction">Webster's online</a> does, as being just another philosophical term:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">1: a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers<br />
2: the analytic examination of something (such as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy</span></em></blockquote>
, which presents it as the means of pursuing some deeper understanding which JR assumed it to be, and makes no mention of its having been designed to de-construct - destroy - your ability to understand and reason.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bmu5LAyhLKm-o-OSUB3JWiIRLe38HmcQyAQdKl1LdkT1fjR1oDkb2ZHfHGswgRjgZ5AXWh-CX-f3chyphenhyphenjUtXcW353aet3rSrefJkg3V5ojEVRj-g-H6YGlEWZGSrYLQ-srHKA4yUqZonl4T7vpgoORA36U4kfIihwptF_3ZT36dx3qzMnFlezNA/s1200/Faek77_WYAAbZ--.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bmu5LAyhLKm-o-OSUB3JWiIRLe38HmcQyAQdKl1LdkT1fjR1oDkb2ZHfHGswgRjgZ5AXWh-CX-f3chyphenhyphenjUtXcW353aet3rSrefJkg3V5ojEVRj-g-H6YGlEWZGSrYLQ-srHKA4yUqZonl4T7vpgoORA36U4kfIihwptF_3ZT36dx3qzMnFlezNA/s320/Faek77_WYAAbZ--.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
In practice that means confusing our language (which <a href="https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf" target="_blank">has been job#1 since before Plato</a>) into weaponized terms that're primed to explode in the public's face at some later date, just as 'antiracist' by definition purports to oppose racism, while in practice it entails promoting aggressively racist activism throughout our society. That ulterior motive of 'Deconstruction' can be glimpsed by reading between the lines of one of the supporting explanations found on the link JR didn't dare venturing to, taken from Jonathan Culler's "<a href="https://amzn.to/309hiQb">On Deconstruction</a>", from Cornell University Press, which takes a very favorable view of Deconstructionism, says in part:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...The term deconstruction has thus come to designate a range of radical theoretical enterprises in such fields as law, architecture, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, ethics and political theory, in addition to philosophy, psychoanalysis, and literary and cultural studies. Though diverse, <b>these enterprises share a critical dismantling of the conceptual oppositions</b> that had previously been regarded as fundamental to the disciplines."</span>[emphasis mine]</em></blockquote>
If any of that sounds innocuous to you, you might ask yourself what happens when you dismantle those 'conceptual oppositions', AKA: 'binary oppositions', such as True and False, Right and Wrong, and Male and Female (yup)... what understanding do you suppose you'll be able to retain, once the meaning they were meant to convey has been lost?
<br /><br />
Derrida began his project of Deconstruction by exploiting issues he found in those philosophies that Post-Modernism evolved from, with <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/literary/#H5">Structuralism</a> (language has less to do with meaning, than with functioning to signify differences in objects and societal structures), <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/">Existentialism</a> (life is absurd and meaningless), and <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/">Phenomenology</a> (metaphysics is rejected in favor of the belief that meaning comes from how our own attention shapes perceived experiences into structures of consciousness). He used criticism of them to target Platonic metaphysics (through a Kantian lens) with the intent of challenging even the status of the idea of a pure 'substance' of reality - the 'thing in itself' that Kant said we can never truly know - being higher than the words it dimly appears to us through (again, Kant). Derrida contended that the phenomena of being is not pure, as from the moment of experience it is 'contaminated' with memory and expectation, conditioned by time - past, present, and future - to form binary oppositions spiraling away from the instant being experienced, and the words we vainly attempt to capture it with.
<br /><br />
To the extent that Derrida's ideas actually <i>mean</i> anything at all, this meant that as the instant being experienced by us is being fractured by a "<i>violence, a rending of oneself, an incision</i>" in the moment and is contaminated by memory and expectation, that gap between <i>being and becoming</i>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
"...consists in the small, 'infinitesimal difference' (see Of Grammatology, p. 234) between me and an other, even between me and an other in me... a '<i>différance</i>'..."</span></em></blockquote>
, a gap which he calls "<i>the worst</i>" which affects not only our understanding of the world, but of ourselves as well, as those words we repeatedly use to signify each unrepeatable event, over time, come to signify something progressively different from what we intended them to mean in the context of that moment that's been lost to us.
<br /><br />
To Derrida this 'means' that all 'true' meaning is lost to time, and that our words are therefore meaning-less to us, but as they are all we have, then all we can and must do, is to continually 'Deconstruct' the binaries of experience and our words for it, seeking to reveal at least some shade of what has been repressed in them, in an endlessly recursive and futile effort that justice nevertheless demands we relentlessly subject our every thought and action to.
<br /><br />
This new plan of Deconstruction hit Kant's 'Copernican Revolution' with a revolutionary spin that not only flattened its hierarchy by reducing it to a binary of "essence and appearance", but then inverted it by concluding that since our words are all that we actually experience, they are more real and important to us than the Kantian experience of reality which only distantly gives rise to them.
<br /><br />
In applying Deconstructionism to a few of the binaries he found, Derrida revealed that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>in Friendship and Hospitality, as we must unconditionally share all we have with all friends and strangers even though we are unable to do so which shows how we betray our ideas even as they are betrayed by experience,</li>
<li> in Justice, as the 'gap', the 'differance`' between the <i>word</i> of the law and administering it in action (contaminated by memory and expectation, dontcha know), dooms any and all efforts to deliver justice to injustice and does violence to all (so we must continue to criticize and deconstruct it, not to improve matters, but because we must and will necessarily make matters ever worse ('Social Justice', anyone?),</li>
<li>and in religion, the 'differance`' caused him to equate God with Kant's 'radical evil', as described by the 'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy' as,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The worst violence occurs when the other to which one is related is completely appropriated to or completely in one’s self, when an address reaches its proper destination, when it reaches only its proper destination. Reaching only its proper destination, the address will exclude more, many more, and that “many more,” at the limit, amounts to all. It is this complete exclusion or this extermination of the most – there is no limit to this violence—that makes this violence the worst violence. The worst is a relation that makes of more than one simply one, that makes, out of a division, an indivisible sovereignty. <b>We can see again that the worst resembles the “pure actuality” of Aristotle’s Prime Mover, the One God: the sphere, or better, the globe of thought thinking itself</b> (Rogues, p. 15)." </span></em>[emphasis mine]</blockquote>
</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
, and that is positively upbeat in comparison to his takes on responsibility and secrets, as is found in his 'Secrets of European responsibility'.
<br /><br />
Are you getting the picture?
Does that sound like somehting you'd recommend to others as a mental template to help them get a better understanding their lives, premises, and religion? Would you gloss over the differences between that, and reasonable thinking, as merely an issue of 'semantics'? Even the 'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', which overall gives <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/">a fawning analysis of Derrida</a> and Deconstruction, says that his thinking:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...comes to be associated with a form of writing and thinking that is illogical and imprecise..."</span></em></blockquote>
Ya think? Contrary to the advice JR had blithely given, Deconstruction is <i>not</i> intended to improve our understanding of what is real and true no, no, <i>noOooo</i>; instead Derrida uses the failures of modern philosophical systems to legitimize discarding what is real and true in favor of a verbal turbulence of meaninglessness. He justified that, by tracing his way back through preceding misosophers from Heidegger on back through to Descartes, as a means of "<i>...deconstituting them...</i>", and as "<i>...the most daring way of making the beginnings of a step outside of philosophy...</i>", to escape being "<i>swallowed up in metaphysics</i>" ('<a href="http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/sign-play.html">Structure, Sign, and Play' 1966</a>).
<br /><br />
Having done all of that, he concluded that the belief that <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Speech_and_Phenomena/N4v2AkGMnqcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR37&printsec=frontcover">words have meaning is an illusion</a>, as are our ideas of right and wrong, and true and false, etc., and indeed that the relentless deconstruction of such binaries, which <i>we must do</i>, will take us ever further away from a better understanding of what is real and true.
<br /><br />
Those who've followed after Derrida, have continued to operate (wherever it suits their purposes) on the assertion that since words as such are meaningless, then the only thing that is of any 'value' in the words we use, is the power found in their reactions to hearing the sound of them, and it's <i>that</i> power, and indeed <i>Power</i> in and of itself, that in practice (or praxis) is in the end all that matters (resist asking if they <i>mean</i> that - that's how their virus is spread).
<br /><br />
These tools of Post-Modernist and Deconstructionist thought have been relentlessly used to strike at the heart of the West's thinking for quite some time now, and what Derrida intended them to do to that heart, was, as his <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Speech_and_Phenomena/N4v2AkGMnqcC?hl=en&gbpv=1">translator puts it</a>, the
<br /><br />
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... project of critical thought whose task is to locate and "take apart" those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and that metaphysics he's aiming at taking apart - de-constructing - is what every ideal and value you have, rests upon and depends upon - Science most definitely included - and, to put it bluntly, failing to grasp that suggests that your own metaphysical foundations are already in such a state of disrepair that you are senseless to any further damage being done to them (oh <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal.html">hi Neil deGrasse Tyson!</a>).
And yet the likes of JR are everywhere, whether consciously or witlessly, are recommending forms of them as a means to attaining a 'better understanding' of their religion, and as ways of "<i>critically examining ALL of one’s premises</i>" - how do you think that will turn out?
<br /><br />
It's high time we realize that Derrida's '<i>illogical and imprecise</i>' language, and that of his compatriots, is less a result of error or ineptness, than a deliberate effort to construct tools for accomplishing a very particular kind of job: Deconstructing the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West.
<br /><br />
That strategic intent was perhaps most vividly illustrated by Audre Lorde, the Marxist, black, lesbian, feminist, activist (do you feel "<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-semantic-deception-of-sel-social.html"><i>the exasperated etc</i></a>” in that listing?), who's infamous statement has become a rallying cry of <a href="https://www.activistgraduateschool.org/on-the-masters-tools">what Deconstructionism <i>is</i> all about</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”</span></em></blockquote>
Get it?
<ul><li>
The Master's House that they want to dismantle (deconstruct) is the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian West.</li>
<li>The Masters Tools which they've realized are of no use to them - and which they want to keep out of other people's hands as well, are Reason and Logic and the culture which values them.</li></ul>
Whenever their activist followers and functionaries do and say seemingly senseless, illogical, and unreasonable things, from demanding the use of ridiculous pronouns, to claims of being "<i>non-binary!</i>", or labeling you (meaning any Westerner of <i>any</i> color) as a 'White Supremacist', they're <i>not</i> doing so because they're fools, but because those illogical and unreasonable words and actions <i>are</i> the most suitable tools at hand in their Post-Modernist toolbelt, for them to utilize as '<i>the right tools for the job</i>' of dismantling 'The Master's House', by producing reactions of discomfort and anger in you, which deconstructs its fundamental norms from within you.
<br /><br />
And when the tools at hand in the activist's tool-belt aren't up to handling the heavier demolition work that's often required, they'll reach into their toolbox for the 'academically respected' power-tools of Deconstructionism, Queer Theory, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/11/intersectionality-art-of-gaining-power.html">Intersectionality</a>, and others, which they put to expert use - as often as not with our invaluable aid and unwitting assistance - in dismantling those fundamental ideals of Western Civilization, which our entire culture and understanding rest upon.
<br /><br />
Consequently, when we reply - oh-so logically - with <i>'but I'm not racist!</i>', or <i>'a boy can't menstruate!'</i> to them, as if they had somehow made legitimate errors in an attempt to make an actual argument, we are <i>not</i> countering their statements in doing so, we're <i>furthering </i>them! By engaging directly or indirectly with such provocations, we give the impression that their 'arguments' have made a valid point to be argued with, when in fact they've only made an arbitrary (and absurd) point that isn't even up to the level of being wrong, and our engaging with them enables their statement to slide forward into our discussions as if they'd said something worthy of rational discussion, when they most definitely have not.
<br /><br />
Not for nothing was it once commonly understood, that to keep conversatins rational and reasonable, you must be quick to:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"nip the arbitrary in the bud!"</span></em></blockquote>
Unless we begin to actively call a halt to the train of their jumbled words, and learn to point out where they left the track of fact and principle, their assertions will continue rolling on down the track, derailing further discussions, as people directly or indirectly engage still other people in their comments, as if they were worthy of being considered on the merits of an argument, that was never even made.
<br /><br />
When we allow their terms and statements to slip through our conversations without having been fully stopped and utterly rejected (which is <i>not</i> the same as disagreeing with them), it informs them that they've been successful at de-constructing at least one more small part of '<i>The Master's House</i>' which your life and peace of mind represent. The foundations of that House become progressively undermined and de-constructed by way of the arbitrary and unreasonable confusions that they're allowed to sow into people's sensibilities of what is good, beautiful, and true, by way of their '<i>illogical and imprecise</i>' language, operating upon us from within <i>our</i> own minds.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Rs7b6Lq_lewyPz48Lgarm57ExwymPNKnh_GBwpvbWnKWfZtOQRHgTQEK1Op0eX3TsABXutruKSaDkbbmUoBMfHRcJIsEJa0_1kOaI61sMMe7eKIfV0oz89NW-Pd0tPx6F3YcEpK4si6e-TDE7xDn6H6g5voD4r9rXXJTyTyej4VmWzwdCWl1hg/s2048/TheIssueIsNeverTheIssue.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1425" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Rs7b6Lq_lewyPz48Lgarm57ExwymPNKnh_GBwpvbWnKWfZtOQRHgTQEK1Op0eX3TsABXutruKSaDkbbmUoBMfHRcJIsEJa0_1kOaI61sMMe7eKIfV0oz89NW-Pd0tPx6F3YcEpK4si6e-TDE7xDn6H6g5voD4r9rXXJTyTyej4VmWzwdCWl1hg/s320/TheIssueIsNeverTheIssue.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Whatever the particular issue happens to be, and no matter what or how absurd they claim an issue to be about, we need to remember <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/fighting-hydra-requires-more-than-just.html">Alinsky's dictum</a>, that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The issue is never the issue. The issue is <b>always</b> the revolution"</span></em></blockquote>
, meaning that whatever the issue is that's being raised, their point in raising it is to be a tool that's useful in dismantling 'the Master's House', and furthering their revolution against the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian West.
<br /><br />
Pardon me for repeating that - the issue is <i>never </i>the issue, the issue is <i>always</i> about furthering the revolution. When we engage with their deliberately confused and deconstructed language by arguing with their 'points', we're helping them to spread their weopanized language ever wider into our personal and societal conversations, like a virus, which <i>is</i> the nature of what Derrida and others consciously modeled their ideas upon: ideas which are sure to sicken all who engage with them.
<br /><br />
<b>The practice of being sure to doubt everything <i>except</i> what <i>you</i> believe (?!), didn't start with Derrida</b><br />
What enables their arbitrary and unreasonable attacks to move forward, are a set of common assumptions that underlie the actions and priorities of people like JR, which are assumed to excuse their own stated intentions, such as his claim to be '<i>critically examining ALL of one’s premises</i>', while never questioning his own. The manner of thinking behind that, goes all the way back to <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/unknown-conspiracies-you-dont-think.html" target="_blank">Rene Descartes and his 'Method of Doubt'</a>.
<br /><br />
That was where the advice was first given that in order to be certain of anything, we should methodically doubt <i>everything</i> we are certain of - <i>not</i> by reasonably questioning our way towards a deeper understanding of a matter, while honestly acknowledging & examining any discrepancies that might be found regarding it, but by <i>causelessly</i> and <i>arbitrarily</i> doubting <i>every</i>thing ('<i>relentlessly criticize all that exists!'</i>, is how Marx would re-apply it centuries later), and actively assuming everything to be false until you feel that something 'somehow' satisfies those doubts which you had <i>no</i> actual cause to feel in the first place.
<br /><br />
And how do you <i>know</i> that these doubts have been satisfied well enough that you can now be certain of something? When you '<i>clearly and distinctly believe [it] to be true</i>' - IOW what <i>you</i> feel <i>no</i> doubt about, is what you can be certain of!
<br /><br />
<i>That</i>, ladies & gents, is not a method for carefully examining your own premises in order to discover what is real and true, it's a method for attacking everyone else's premises and defending what you wish was 'true'!
<br /><br />
Not so surprisingly, the 'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy' <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec">points out that</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...we can get a general sense of what Derrida means with deconstruction by recalling Descartes’s First Meditation. There Descartes says that for a long time he has been making mistakes. The criticism of his former beliefs both mistaken and valid aims towards uncovering a “firm and permanent foundation.” The image of a foundation implies that the collection of his former beliefs resembles a building. In the First Meditation then, Descartes is in effect taking down this old building, “de-constructing” it. We have also seen how much Derrida is indebted to traditional transcendental philosophy which really starts here with Descartes’ search for a “firm and permanent foundation.” ..."</span></em></blockquote>
In light of which it's especially worth considering the effects of Descartes' doubtful approach to certainty and life, by imagining the effects that allowing habitually and arbitrarily fabricated doubts, to form the foundations of your understanding. Far from helping you to build your ideas upon a firmer foundation, you're instead planting your feet upon grounds that will be continuously shifting beneath them, in an ever present & undefined state of anxiety, caused by the attempt to standing upon it.
<br /><br />
One way to visualize that worldview, which might bring it more clearly home, is to imagine it through the judicial context of presuming all defendants to be '<i>Guilty as charged... until proven innocent</i>', versus that of presuming each person to be '<i>Innocent until proven guilty</i>' - which do you suppose tends more towards constraining those in power to the pursuit of justice, and which is more likely to entices them towards imposing a tyranny they find favorable? Imagine the self-satisfaction of being a 'good' prosecutor, who can be certain of what <i>you</i> most want to believe, and having the power to dismiss any quibbles about what you have no doubt about, as... mere semantics.
<br /><br />
Given that Justice at the level of society, is a reflection of the sense of justice that is understood and practiced by its people, is it really so surprising that the state of justice in our world today is as it is, when this worldview is at the root of so much of what we say and do?
<br /><br />
It's no coincidence that Descartes is who moderns of all stripes cite as the beginning of 'modern epistemology', and though others preceded him (Occam, for instance, the father of Nominalism), it was his works more than any other that succeeded at leading popular philosophical thinking away from pre-modern Metaphysics, and instigated the undermining of the foundations of Logic, and the separation of Ethics from both. That trend began to hit critical mass with Hume's skeptical 'empiricism', followed by the German idealists' reaction to that in the late 1700s, which took form in their '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html">4th branch of philosophy</a>', and fully kicked into gear under the label of '<i>Epistemology!</i>' in the mid 1800s. From that point on, the Pro-Regressives (Left & Right) began explicitly operating outside of, and in opposition to, a sound and integrated understanding of Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics (which is what Epistemology must be <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html">to live up to the name coined for it</a>).
<br /><br />
<!--<i>These</i> are the ideas that make up the fields and plantations which sustain the pro-regressive ideals that feed and fuel and sustain the Culture War that we are blindly battling against today - how to recognize and burn them down, is what we'll look at in coming posts.
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 40%;">
<b>The plantation houses and fields <b><i>is</i></b> what must be burned down:</b><br/>
<blockquote><em><span style='font-size:85%;'><ul>
<li>mistaking faked doubts for real questions</li>
<li>Meaning doesn't matter</li>
<li>Truth is relative or unknowable</li>
<li>Space as something itlself vs The distance between things that can be measured</li>
<li>Becoming vs the properties and actions of that which exists</li>
<li>Technology/Economics instead of Wisdom</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote></div>
<br/><br/>
milei
https://twitter.com/Van_Blogodidact/status/1737483535630410153
White, Elon, Tucker - Fuck you
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1730647866837004770
Strickland
https://twitter.com/WarriorPoet_72/status/1761489930776158219
Dana White on Strickland
https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2024/01/ufc-297-toronto-video-dana-white-opinion-sean-strickland-baited-by-journalist-in-anti-gay-homophobic-rant-->
The problem for us today is that we've become deaf to traditional metaphysics, and so we easily become lost in the echoes of Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Dewey, while we're not even somewhat aware of how they've re-terraformed the logos out from under our feet, with most being unaware of how unsteady the mental ground that we stand upon, has become. Mistaking our shaky foundations for steady ones, leaves us tending to ignore those seemingly incomprehensible quibbles of '<i>social constructs</i>' and '<i>mere semantics</i>' that arise, and are too easily assumed to be of no real importance, and those assumptions leave us unable to identify, let alone burn down, what it is that sustains the Pro-Regressives strategies & tactics that are actively acting against us.
<br /><br />
Remaining blind to those realities, means continuing to accept their illusory positions '<i>for the sake of argument</i>', as if they were 'only fair' - effectively '<a href="https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/sowing+dragon%27s+teeth">sowing the dragon's teeth</a>' into the ground we're fighting over - a ground that's easily transforms into an army of strawmen who derive <i>real</i> power over us, through new societal norms derived from them. Rest assured, that as those doubts rise up around you, your own familiar 'binaries' (you know, True & False, innocent/guilty, Man & Woman) will be deconstructed by them, into the itty bitty pieces of logic defying narratives that post-modernists <a href="https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/chiasma/article/view/258/108">and deconstructionists</a> glibly use, to become the new 'privileged' of our society with, and all without the need for or benefit of, having any 'useful merit'.
<br /><br />
Should you object that their rules '<i>make no sense!</i>', you'll soon see firsthand what the very real-world consequences of modern epistemology are. The responses you'll receive to any objection you might make to them, are sure to make Kant seem like a model of brevity and succinctness, and unless you strike them like a Gen. Sherman, rather than Gen. McClellan (or even Gen. Grant), they'll verbally pin you to the mental ground in the blink of an I, as surely as if they were Andre the Giant, rather than as the illusory wisp of nothingness that they actually are.
<br /><br />
We <i>need</i> to become aware that the disintegration of our understanding, is what each and every instance of deconstructionist & post-modernist thinking is aimed at.
<br /><br />
Those like JR who assume being 'smart' is even more valuable than knowing what they presume to talk about, see themselves as being the empirical voices of '<i>reason!</i>' and '<i>science!</i>', and do so precisely because their unconscious epistemology is derived from the modern claims that <i>we cannot know</i> what is real and true. They're also especially quick to take a dim view of those ideas and concepts that can't be reduced to measurable quantities (oh hi again <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal.html">Neil deGrasse Tyson</a>!) of this or that accepted fact. Such nominalistic 'STEM' centric thinking, which is self-limited to having no more depth than an instruction manual, mistakes the machine-like logic of spreadsheets & flowcharts, for the due consideration and reflection required for honest Science and Reasoning, and lead to views that readily lend themselves to virtue signaling, and calling people to doubt any 'non-scientific' certainties that hinder the advancement of one utilitarian effort after another '<i>for the greater good!</i>', epistemologically blinded as they are, to the fact that they are steadily distancing themselves ever further from being able to understand what <i>is</i> real and true.
<br /><br />
Never forget that the Pro-Regressive's real focus is not on the issue that they've succeeded at getting you to fight them over, but on winning the war - <i>"The issue is never the issue. The issue is <b>always</b> the revolution"</i>!
<br /><br />
As such our Culture Wars cannot be won with tactics that are focused on engaging (enabling) and besting the Pro-Regressive on the grounds of whichever issue they've lured you into being outraged over once again, or by relying upon definitions - or redefinitions ('racist' for instance) - instead of insisting upon arguments that are epistemologically sound (adhering to metaphysics (<i>what is</i>), logic (<i>does it follow</i>), and ethics (<i>what, if anything, should be done about it</i>)), and every moment of pretended legitimacy that they gain by your battling them on the ground they prepared for that purpose, cedes that much more of your ground into their control.
<br /><br />
If we want to stop losing ground, we've <i>got </i>to stop using the strategies & tactics which they've prepared that ground with so as to benefit them, in every battle waged against you upon it. The consequences of brushing their philosophical strategies and tactics off as 'simply' semantics, borders on a criminal level of intellectual negligence.
<br /><br />
<b>Look through Gen. Sherman's eyes: Identify & locate their 'intellectual homeland' and burn it to the ground</b><br />
So that was what I'd despaired over a few months back. What brightened my outlook, OTOH, were a few choice media moments which showed that some are refusing to be suckered into the same old verbal battles of attrition that the Pro-Regressive confederacy wants <i>and needs</i> us to fight on, and did so in a very Gen. Shermanesque manner, that showed that we might actually have a chance of escaping from the long line of unlearned lessons of history that we need to stop repeating. If we do, the rickety foundation of lies that their whole pseudo-reality is built upon, will come tumbling down in flaming ruins.
<br /><br />
The first thing they didn't do, was step into the Utilitarian and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/10/pragmatically-shifting-us-off-of-our.html">'Pragmatic'</a> pattern of 'being practical' which conservatives have been mistaking for 'common sense' for well over a century. Although such actions have the shallow appearance of practicality, what it actually entails is the rejection of thinking in principles, in favor of a narrow focus on the details of the moment, which necessarily rejects anything worth conserving. Semantic Deception at its 'finest'.
<br /><br />
An excellent example from the recent past of how this works, was the question that lured conservatives into being chewed up and spat out in their <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/04/principles-left-behind-rush-to-slut.html" target="_blank">opposition to 'Obamacare', with</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'30% of Americans are not covered by healthcare, what about them!'</span></em></blockquote>
, and the moment the conservative considered the question and offered up a 'more reasonable' percentage or policy detail, they'd unwittingly abandoned their own principled ground of individual rights and private property, which legitimized the activist's position and effectively lost the fight without saying a single 'intolerant' word. That proven strategy of defeat has led conservatives to lose one battle after another in every conservative effort of the last century, and has brought us to the point where entire states are now outlawing parents from preventing the 'educational/medical complex' from chemically mangling & surgically butchering their children's bodies, in the totalitarian name of tolerance.
<br /><br />
The truth is that there is <i>no compromising</i> between principles, only the abandonment of them. That's not a knock against compromise, but against habitually using the pretense of compromise, as a cover for abandoning your principles. Compromise, when mutually struck <i>within</i> a larger principle, can be reasonable and even admirable. It is, for instance, very reasonable to compromise over price and terms for what someone has the right to sell to you - that <i>is</i> seeking a principled compromise by finding common ground. But dickering over price & terms of <i>stolen</i> property, is digging your own grave beneath the common ground which the more ruthless villain will soon be walking over.
<br /><br />
We've become so conditioned to 'pragmatic' thinking, that we rarely even think to turn to first principles when facing a problem, and those that do, are too easily led to undermine them afterwards with pragmatic concerns over what's 'practical'.
<br /><br />
What enables error and falsehood to appear to be 'common sense' is modern epistemology, which begins in the assertion that you <i>cannot know</i> what is real and true, and therefore we must settle for what others accept it to be. Even if you didn't realize that to be the case, nearly everyone you listen to and look to for advice, abides by that presumption, and if we don't soon recognize that for what it is, it <i>will</i> fully consume us. Truly, our Culture War is '<i><a href="https://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-12.htm">not against flesh and blood</a></i>', but against principalities and powers, and any battle of ideas that doesn't insist upon starting with what is real and true, is begun in failure and can only continue to fail, as it has from the start of the 20th Century, on down to today.
<br /><br />
It was with that almost unbroken pattern of failure in mind, that I was startled to see not one, or two, but three examples of, if not exactly the Gen. Sherman strategy I've had in mind, at least the spirt of it in action. And surprisingly - or not - they came from the 'fight world', two from the mixed-martial arts world with UFC fighter Shane Strickland, and a follow-up smackdown from UFC owner Dana White, and 1 <span style="font-size: 75%;"><sup>1/2</sup></span> from the political arena of Argentina's new president, Javier Milei. Milei's solid first strike knocked my socks off with his rebuke to a reporter who wanted to 'engage him' in a discussion about Leftist policies, which he delivered in a direct and fiery style that <a href="https://twitter.com/mistergusano/status/1737478843219272191">cut the 'engagement' off before it could begin</a> :
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh5sxVXGNJmKpWMCxS8KF7Th3D3e_LBIL5Knxxv8SvFMHCUCT4g6JM-NYPZs8Tl2HLsilvWt1ljvH0TE5aitLtILApc61rb813UDEJEi8UdoVfgl5ozkZ9WWmeVyEHBuL-Ebmg9EFEWT-b_nk_mXfBUVFa1sWhvCo2P1i6Clx3zsLE2o_JB-DLFA/s650/JavierMilei_LeftistsAreShit.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="650" data-original-width="622" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh5sxVXGNJmKpWMCxS8KF7Th3D3e_LBIL5Knxxv8SvFMHCUCT4g6JM-NYPZs8Tl2HLsilvWt1ljvH0TE5aitLtILApc61rb813UDEJEi8UdoVfgl5ozkZ9WWmeVyEHBuL-Ebmg9EFEWT-b_nk_mXfBUVFa1sWhvCo2P1i6Clx3zsLE2o_JB-DLFA/s200/JavierMilei_LeftistsAreShit.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...You can’t give leftist pieces of shit even a millimeter because if you give them a millimeter they will use it to destroy you..."</span></em></blockquote>
, that refusal to treat the socialist/communist Left with any respect at all, while pointedly identifying their anti-human agenda, was the style he used to win the Presidency of Argentina (the <span style="font-size: 75%;"><sup>1/2</sup></span> point coming from his confrontational, but polite, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z44XP4u9Xs"> speech to the WEF</a>).
<br /><br />
And then came the press conference for Sean Strickland's fight. He refused to treat a reporter's 'trans' question as being worth answering, and instead went <a href="https://youtu.be/rGMQXNUpJo8?t=123"> straight to the heart of the matter </a> that the reporter was attempting to advance by baiting Strickland about his 'insensitivity'. Strickland knocked his question aside and then beat him down with the ridiculousness of it, showing the reporter to be the worthless and opportunistic ideological poser he was:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh3-GOn89BfANFHFF_unt_-924n1agKjUS2h8TidgiRr9vPLorZZ3NzxfPwZfwo8AlR8KKY_BWt11R9hxC74FXCa0MnVBCx35o1J_qjN7aVkhBsnO5D44fPAc7ndfbD3LNdP2OgYkpbjGLkteMT_mXgWiMuLk9xiuvT38FUewQ-qpyis2IWEZV8A/s1298/StricklandPressConf.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="745" data-original-width="1298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh3-GOn89BfANFHFF_unt_-924n1agKjUS2h8TidgiRr9vPLorZZ3NzxfPwZfwo8AlR8KKY_BWt11R9hxC74FXCa0MnVBCx35o1J_qjN7aVkhBsnO5D44fPAc7ndfbD3LNdP2OgYkpbjGLkteMT_mXgWiMuLk9xiuvT38FUewQ-qpyis2IWEZV8A/s200/StricklandPressConf.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...people like you have weasled your way in the world you are you are an infection you are the definition of weakness everything that is wrong with the world..."</span></em></blockquote>
Later, the same (I assume?) reporter tried to engage Dana White in an apology for Strickland's 'insensitive' speech. White did not answer that, but instead went straight to the heart of the presumptions behind asking such a question of an MMA fighter, and batting aside the attempted 'followup' question that implied that White gave too long of 'a leash' to his fighters, White called his presumption out into the open and <a href="https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2024/01/ufc-297-toronto-video-dana-white-opinion-sean-strickland-baited-by-journalist-in-anti-gay-homophobic-rant">burned him down to the ground for the anti-free-speech thug he was</a>:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhFRqRd3ib4vKNKFwlIZsrq6eTt-M4xpj1uxZijiP16U6RrygjOZnxI0JtjOBe6dONbBKiCalgk4oYQpmNv3iC0W4brhuijHCIfDGuOaYK6yg9ChetEJeX8-WVkNbtDtyCLCT6tx6Vxy3NQLQBPHE58J8L5APG9Qm_AuzyWhyphenhyphenw-2GBQUd4XvGDrw/s704/DanaWhitePressConf.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="431" data-original-width="704" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhFRqRd3ib4vKNKFwlIZsrq6eTt-M4xpj1uxZijiP16U6RrygjOZnxI0JtjOBe6dONbBKiCalgk4oYQpmNv3iC0W4brhuijHCIfDGuOaYK6yg9ChetEJeX8-WVkNbtDtyCLCT6tx6Vxy3NQLQBPHE58J8L5APG9Qm_AuzyWhyphenhyphenw-2GBQUd4XvGDrw/s200/DanaWhitePressConf.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">...“I don’t give anyone a leash,” White said. “A leash? Free speech. Control what people say? You’re going to tell people what to believe? I don’t f*cking tell any other human being what to say, what to think. There are no leashes on anyone. It’s ridiculous to say that I give somebody a leash. Free speech, brother. People can say whatever they want and believe whatever they want.
<br /><br />
“We had two gay women who fought in the co-main event. They sat on the stage with Sean Strickland (at the press conference). They could give a sh*t what Sean Strickland says or what his beliefs are or what his opinions are...”</span></em></blockquote>
I've no doubt that I'd disagree with all three of these people on mucho-many issues, and much as I'd personally prefer straight talk without the F'bombs of Milei & White, to say nothing of the veritable carpet bombing of F'Bombs that Strickland does the job with... I'm happy to enjoy the win they achieved with them. If your ears aren't too tender, each exchange is well worth listening to, as they give an excellent demonstration of how to refuse being distracted into fighting on the Pro-Regressive's tactics of 'factual' attrition, while driving straight past their defenses to expose and fire-bomb their unstated assumptions, and so easily seizes a victory that sends their opponent to an embarrassing defeat.
<br /><br />
While neither of these instances went as far as going for the epistemological root of the matter, they each struck low enough to the ground-level of their opponent's ideological positions, to identify and expose the pretended 'principles' within the questions being asked of them - which they identified and mocked, rather than swallowing and groveling before them. In each of these instances, the person being targeted by the interviewer <i>pointedly</i> refused the usual invitation to get bogged down in fighting a pointless battle on the pragmatic 'factual' grounds that'd been prepared for them to be defeated upon, and by doing so they successfully exposed their questioner's agenda and burned it to the ground! If that approach were to become anything of a norm, it would knock the pro-regressive Left & Right back on their heels, and they'd have to withdraw from the public ring for at least a while. Maybe even for years.
<br /><br />
But. Without formally burning their epistemology to the ground, the Pro-Regressives would eventually be able to return, and I'd much prefer that they be utterly destroyed for both now, <i>and</i> for the foreseeable future.
<br /><br />
Study these fighter's moves: notice how they look past the opponent's tactics to identify their motive 'principle' (which they hope to disarm you with) and burn that to the ground. Learn to see the latest outrage being waved in our faces as the latest pragmatic tool of anti-principled thinking that it is, identify its motive power that traces its roots down to modern Epistemology itself, and burn their entire intellectual plantation to the ground.
<br /><br />
Imagine if a <a href="https://www.boredpanda.com/ricky-gervais-golden-globes-monologue/" target="_blank">Ricky Gervais style of roasting Hollywood celebrities</a> were to become the norm that the post-modernist & deconstructionist Woke-folk had to look forward to in their everyday conversations and public interviews! If it became the norm to identify the noxious ideological roots of every ridiculous proposal they throw at us, to be publicly exposed, mocked, and brushed aside, we'd be well on our way to taking back the grounds that've become the dark-heartland of Modernity during their '<i>long march through the institutions</i>', and to putting an end to the Culture War as swiftly as Gen. Sherman's march to the sea had.
<br /><br />
But doing so will absolutely require us to practice an epistemology of metaphysics (<i>what is</i>), logic (<i>does it follow</i>), and ethics (<i>what, if anything, should be done about it</i>), to burn out the sustenance of modern misosophy, burning it out at its roots and salting that ground, to finally bring this war against the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian West to an end.
<br /><br />
And then of course there's the fact that <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/william-t-sherman#section_7" target="_blank">Gen. Sherman had an army</a> to direct and execute his strategy - we don't - and we can't wait for such 'leaders' to come along and give us our marching orders.
<br /><br /><i>
SoOooo... </i>what do we do?
<br /><br />
What we have to do, is to become an army of Gen. Sherman's ourselves, with each of us having an understanding of the strategy to be practiced, and each willingly taking the lead ourselves, in our own corner of the war. Recruit your fellows to understand and take on Gen. Sherman's role themselves; each of us, one at a time, giving no more time to their skirmishes than is needed to march on and burn their epistemology to the ground, by understanding and exposing what it really is, we can deprive them of the ability to sustain themselves upon our lack of attention, which is what they always relied upon and expected from us.
<br /><br />
It's true, there's no glory in learning to fight against our modern Pro-Regressive's epistemology, but it's the only path to defeating those who absolutely depend upon you accepting their positions as solid or respectable ground. And just as there seemed to be no glory in battling against crops and burning down plantations, learning to do so is the only thing that will save those like JR who blindly assume that they are fighting the 'good fight' and championing what is 'real and true', when in fact their actions are undermining everyone's ability to live a life worth living, in our still <i>very</i> real world. The culture wars won't end on our terms unless we begin cutting their legs out from underneath them, and doing so requires our exposing and destroying the epistemology which their <i>every</i> action is rooted in and dependent upon - that <i>is</i> what it will take to burn the modern Pro-Regressive (Left & Right) homeland to the ground.
<br /><br />
With that in mind, what I've laid out in the previous posts, is the ground we need to map and hold as our home ground. What I'm going to turn to in the coming posts, is identifying and exposing the source of what enables the enemy's figments and lies to appear solid and formidable, both with what it draws from, and how it shapes them into an appearance of substance, which it can only do with our blind acceptance and participation. That should bring to mind once again, Solzhenitsyn's powerful and fundamental point:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">Live not by lies, and don't participate in their spread.</span></em></blockquote>
Hold to that, and victory is inevitable.
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-37296298186581348812024-01-01T00:09:00.000-06:002024-01-01T00:09:03.094-06:00Have a Questionably Happy New Year!
While I still have zero interest in making New Year's Resolutions, if you're one of the 67 percent of men, and 25 percent of women who'd <a href="https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/WILSON%20ET%20AL%202014.pdf" target="_blank">rather give themselves painful electric shocks</a>, than spend an uninterrupted 15 minutes of being alone with their own thoughts, without any distraction at all, I think you should not only resolve to fix that, but make sure that resolution isn't <a href="https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/breaking-bad-habit-starts-silence" target="_blank">one of the 81% - 92 % of New Year's Resolutions that fail</a>.<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl_sZNZ9NuVqmLGcILb0K24ez8u6jVq-o1NSC5Hxp3Jm1KfvdckMPXICftLR2Pj4CD5IGfUY30eBK234Q8bh4dyvHRSKXtOv7B7ZSaswQHQOvKGKwNG2c7Rjyf0E4h2rog1Rc-vSRykr69WKchxDtKBD3y8GDljxx5c4fcKEB1kKhyphenhyphenV7l9I9f-eQ/s474/2024.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="317" data-original-width="474" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl_sZNZ9NuVqmLGcILb0K24ez8u6jVq-o1NSC5Hxp3Jm1KfvdckMPXICftLR2Pj4CD5IGfUY30eBK234Q8bh4dyvHRSKXtOv7B7ZSaswQHQOvKGKwNG2c7Rjyf0E4h2rog1Rc-vSRykr69WKchxDtKBD3y8GDljxx5c4fcKEB1kKhyphenhyphenV7l9I9f-eQ/s320/2024.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
To help with that, <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2013/12/ready-for-happy-new-year-dont-bet-on-it.html">I'll again suggest</a> that you begin the novel notion of getting comfortable with your own thoughts, by, wait for it: Thinking upon things worth thinking about, beginning with some old questions, newly asked. Not only will these resolutions not tie you to any membership fees if you fail to answer them, if you get in the habit of just asking them, you might also get to the point of preferring your own company, to that of a painful electric shock!<br />
<br />
Start off with some basics:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 85%;">"...Western Civilization didn't catch on because of its answers... those are still being argued about more than 3,000 years on... but because of its questions, and its method of comparing your answers to reality, and pursuing the questions which those answers lead to. Questions such as:
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;"></span></em></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What is real and how do we know it?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What is Good? Why should we care?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">How can we recognize what is not Good?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What is a Good life?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What is Happiness?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">Should what is Right and Wrong, guide our actions?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What is Beauty?...What is Truth?...What is Justice?</span></em></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?</span></em></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: 85%;">
Ask the right questions, and your listeners [even if that listener is you] will question their own answers, and reality will do the rest...."</span></blockquote>
Most of all, question what <i>you</i> assume to be true.
<br />
<br />
There is of course also another very practical, and very important reason, to get comfortable with asking yourself these questions, and for questioning what answers you might first come to, and that is that they are consequential to your life, and to the future of this nation in the year 2024, and for the coming decade of the 20's. The immediate impact of considering such questions is in fact very likely to be far more compelling to our new present, than when<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2015/12/snapping-snap-judgments-lest-auld.html"> I first suggested asking yourself them eight years ago</a>:
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...As the old year slips out and the New Year opens up, it's a particularly good time to ask questions that have to do with what is timeless... lest auld acquaintance with them should be forgot. And while it might not seem so, on the surface, these questions we've been asking most definitely involve issues that are timeless - see if you can see how. For instance: Where do you think you fit in, in today's world, are you Pro-Progress, or Pro-Regress? Are you for the Rule of Law, or the Rule of Rules? Are the 'Big Ideas' of Western Civilization something you think much about, or do you mostly shrug them off and just kinda make a snap judgment on various news stories that happen to flit into your view, now and then... and then forget about 'em? Or are you one of the many of us who don't see the point of considering such questions at all, especially not in the midst of the current events raging around us today - ''I'm not getting sucked into THAT mess!'? I hate to cast a pall upon the coming New Year, but I have a sad suspicion that what most people think doesn't matter, isn't going to matter much longer.
<br /><br />
Can anyone really think that the precious snowflakes on our college campuses, or the SJW (Social Justice Warriors) brigades in our streets who are openly advocating to eliminate the Freedom of Speech, or 'unbiased' newscasters talking openly of how those they violently disagree with are 'enemies of the state', <b>can anyone really think that these types are going to be tolerant towards those who say 'Oh, I don't pay attention to that stuff' for much longer? How much longer? And when that vocal 'majority' refuses to allow others the choice to either disagree or evade deciding, what do you suppose is going to be the reaction of those who do disagree with them, and what options will they have to do so?</b>
<br /><br />
Will the one side have any option left open to them, but to take the other side at their own words, as being their enemies?
<br /><br />
No, the time is coming where all will have to decide, one way or the other, where they stand on these issues, because they are what is driving our current events, and your place within them, and brushing them off cannot remain an option much longer. Each person is going to have to choose what they support, and what they will reject. But for those who haven't been paying attention, those - Left, Right, Libertarian and the target rich Moderate center - who've been coasting along on the strength of their snap judgments on this and that - what are they going to base those decisions upon?..."</span></em></blockquote>
Again, don't worry so much about whether the answers that come to your mind are correct, just focus on questioning them. Even questioning just one or two of those questions, is likely to carry you through at least fifteen minutes of time. And at the very least, the results are likely to be less shocking than being left alone with nothing to distract you from them.
<br />
<br />
And remember, as the '<i>studies show</i>' showed,
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Try to notice: Right before you reach for the habit you want to break, do you experience an uncomfortable feeling that you are trying to distract yourself from?
<br /><br />
You won’t break a habit if you are not comfortable with being uncomfortable...."</span></em></blockquote>
Break the habit. Prefer the company of your thoughts for fifteen undistracted minutes, to getting an electric shock, for after all, the new year, not to mention the new decade, is going to be very much longer than 15 minutes!
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Happy New Year!</i></span></b>
... and remember...
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b5sLgeJ9gm8/XgvronyN0GI/AAAAAAAAcFs/l6gInNEAwNEOr80NkCU5YStTUUuuS1lFgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BoromirShocking.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="383" data-original-width="651" height="188" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b5sLgeJ9gm8/XgvronyN0GI/AAAAAAAAcFs/l6gInNEAwNEOr80NkCU5YStTUUuuS1lFgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/BoromirShocking.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-56272453825348961472023-12-15T13:21:00.002-06:002023-12-15T13:21:44.379-06:00The 232nd Birthday of our Bill of Rights is a weird thing to be divided over. Enjoy!
<div style="float: right; padding: 1em;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FIZI557L2iI/XBVOJOJMRDI/AAAAAAAAZ28/dDSu8xBh7CEkPB_KhqDrNNynrgjd2kbkACLcBGAs/s1600/bill_rights.jpg">
<img border="0" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="770" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FIZI557L2iI/XBVOJOJMRDI/AAAAAAAAZ28/dDSu8xBh7CEkPB_KhqDrNNynrgjd2kbkACLcBGAs/s320/bill_rights.jpg" width="259" />
</a></div>
232 years ago today, December 15th, 1791, our states united in ratifying the first ten amendments to the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/">Constitution of the United States of America!</a> How weird is it that many of the individual rights protected by these amendments as being essential to living in liberty - freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freeing religion from government interference - are what <i>We The People</i> are most divided over, and <i>by</i>, today? <br />
<br />
We should all pay especially close attention to the preamble that I've put in bold below - <b>IOW</b>: if <i>our Founders </i>didn't trust govt led by the <i>Founding Fathers themselves.</i>.. <b>why should <i>we</i></b> trust the bunch we've got in our government(s) today?<i>!</i><br />
<br />It's a convenient turn of providence that the first two amendments originally proposed, weren't ratified at the time (one of those two <i>was </i>ratified in the 1990's), because the keeping of government out of religion and its practice, and barring it from tampering with the freedom of speech, the press (which, BTW, doesn't exclude you), the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances <i>should</i> be the first set of individual rights protected from abuse by governmental powers (even and especially if the <i>We The People</i> are urging it to '<i>do something!</i>' about something), followed immediately, as it now is, by the right to keep and bear arms in their defense, as the 1st & 2nd Amendments do. <br />
<br />If you too would like to see our Bill of Rights enjoy many more birthdays, I strongly suggest that you click the links below, and read some of what was in our Founder's minds, when they proposed, debated, and ratified them.<br />
<br />
<strong>Proposed Amendments and Ratification</strong><br />
1789 Elliot 1:338--40 <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Congress of the United States;</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.</div>
<br />
The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, <strong>expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution</strong>;--<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Resolved</strong>, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,</em> two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,--<br />
<br />
<br />
<em>Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Art. I</strong>. [Not Ratified] After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand.<br />
<br />
<strong>Art. II.</strong> [Not ratified... for two centuries, now the 27th amendment] No law varying the compensation for services of the senators and representatives shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.<br />
<br />
<strong>Art. III.[1st]</strong> Congress shall make no law respecting an <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html" target="_blank">establishment of religion</a>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html" target="_blank">abridging the freedom of speech</a>, or of the press, or <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_assembly.html" target="_blank">the right of the people peaceably to assemble</a>, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html" target="_blank">Art. IV [2nd]</a>.</strong> 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.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIII.html" target="_blank">Art. V [3rd]</a>.</strong> No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIV.html" target="_blank">Art. VI [4th]</a>.</strong> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon principal cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<br />
<br />
<strong>Art. VII [5th].</strong> No person <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html" target="_blank">shall be held to answer</a> for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV_due_process.html" target="_blank">due process of law</a>; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html" target="_blank">Art. VIII [6th]</a>.</strong> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVII.html" target="_blank">Art. IX [7th]</a>.</strong> In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules in common law.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVIII.html" target="_blank">Art. X [8th]</a>.</strong> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIX.html" target="_blank">Art. XI [9th]</a>.</strong> The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendX.html" target="_blank">Art. XII [10th]</a>.</strong> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.<br />
<br />
FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG,<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
Speaker of the House of Representatives.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
and President of the Senate. </div>
Attest. John Beckley<br />
Clerk of the House of Representatives.<br />
Samuel A. Otis, Secretary of the Senate.<br />
Which, being transmitted to the several state legislatures, were decided upon by them, according to the following returns:--<br />
<br />
By the State of New Hampshire.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.<br />
By the State of New York.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.<br />
By the State of Pennsylvania.--Agreed to the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th articles of the said amendments.<br />
By the State of Delaware.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 1st article.<br />
By the State of Maryland.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.<br />
By the State of South Carolina.--Agreed to the whole said twelve amendments.<br />
By the State of North Carolina.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.<br />
By the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.<br />
By the State of New Jersey.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the second article.<br />
By the State of Virginia.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.<br />
No returns were made by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, and Kentucky.<br />
<br />
The amendments thus proposed became a part of the Constitution, the first and second of them excepted, which were not ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/" target="_blank">The Founders' Constitution</a><br />
Volume 5, Bill of Rights, Document 12<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html">http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html</a><br />
The University of Chicago Press<br />
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-26233687229034944122023-12-07T07:53:00.002-06:002023-12-07T07:53:23.850-06:00Help to keep the horrific surprise of December 7th, 1941, in the past, by remembering Pearl Harbor Day today<div>Remember to remember. Remember that while we're preoccupied with our concerns of the day, the worst lessons of our yesterdays - such as the unexpected attack upon us 82 years ago today - can return in an instant to consume our present. Remember that when such lessons are least expected, is always <i>Today</i>. Remember to remember the lack of awareness that shaped our past, so that today and tomorrow may be different for us.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ET4Z0Yq6ms4/Tt91lDn911I/AAAAAAAABV4/Kj4Xx9zTLncEDfwnbQmLGEHEJaNSBXH0QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/PearlHarbor.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="740" data-original-width="990" height="149" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ET4Z0Yq6ms4/Tt91lDn911I/AAAAAAAABV4/Kj4Xx9zTLncEDfwnbQmLGEHEJaNSBXH0QCPcBGAYYCw/s200/PearlHarbor.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Remember that December 7th, 1941, dawned as just another morning, when a world of change suddenly came upon the world from out of a clear blue sky.
<br /><br />
Sometimes you need a bit of perspective... today, the 7th of December, is a fine day to get it. Don't just recall, which we all so routinely do, but mentally, spiritually, put them back together - Re-member what led to those events, re-member them, or we may be doomed to repeat our history again after all.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aj6uF6RDfYY/TP6mc_M97QI/AAAAAAAAAgs/8PEz0as2fb0uzxlYfY3bn0GleDe50TQaACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/u-s-s-arizona-memorial-pearl-harbor-hawaii.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aj6uF6RDfYY/TP6mc_M97QI/AAAAAAAAAgs/8PEz0as2fb0uzxlYfY3bn0GleDe50TQaACPcBGAYYCw/w200-h150/u-s-s-arizona-memorial-pearl-harbor-hawaii.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
Remember that days like the 7th of December 1941, can bring with them a very different sort of crisis, than the sort of thing which our media calls a crisis today, and every other day. A real clash of cultures rang out eighty-one years ago today, that truly should live in infamy - but it can do so only if we remember to re-member that it was a day that saw <a href="https://pearlharbor.org/losses-pearl-harbor/" target="_blank">two thousand four hundred and three people</a> slaughtered, and which led us into four years of war and the loss of millions of lives worldwide.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2DMithy6Ew/Sx3-SOJrnUI/AAAAAAAAAQs/FCh2vbERjl8rLGHbUzVmbkAu2uKvq4yjgCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Nagasaki.jpg" style="clear: right; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="360" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2DMithy6Ew/Sx3-SOJrnUI/AAAAAAAAAQs/FCh2vbERjl8rLGHbUzVmbkAu2uKvq4yjgCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Nagasaki.jpg" width="175" /></a></div>
Remember that the smoke that rose over our ships December 7th, 1941, led to the smoke that rose over Hiroshima and Nagasaki four horrifically bloody years later, as well as the age of nuclear war that hangs over our heads still today.
<br /><br />
Remember that things can become <i>infinitely </i>worse than they are right now, in an instant.
<br /><br />
Remember that on December 7th, 1941, in the midst of negotiations to preserve peace, those we negotiated with, attacked us. Remember that sometimes negotiations for peace are simply preparations for war.
<br /><br />
Remember and re-member, the 7th of December, for if history becomes only about the past, it will lose all of its meaning, and your children will have to learn its lessons anew.
<br /><br />
Remember also that those who serve in our military are always at risk of having the ultimate price demanded of them - and they have agreed up front to pay it for you.
<br /><br />
Remember that at Pearl Harbor 82 years ago, Americans were reminded that the freedom to be on the left or right, is not free.
<br /><br />
Remember to honor them, and to honor that which you share with them, the liberty and freedom of being an American.
<br /><br />
These are lessons to learn, and to remember.
<br /><br />
Remember... because it matters that you do.
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-41773239707751907562023-11-30T19:20:00.004-06:002023-12-01T07:26:54.194-06:00Enlightening the Dark Ages once again: Grammar as an Epistemology worthy of the name - You keep using that word 6<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwtA8BWZuUA/ZUTlMR8yGhI/AAAAAAAAozE/6R7ZemQD-qcWk_EPIN6t3-OnIKlxzdtJwCNcBGAsYHQ/s850/Bradbury_StopReading.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="850" data-original-width="844" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwtA8BWZuUA/ZUTlMR8yGhI/AAAAAAAAozE/6R7ZemQD-qcWk_EPIN6t3-OnIKlxzdtJwCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Bradbury_StopReading.jpg" /></a></div>
We began <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html">this series of posts with Inigo Montoya's</a> '<i>You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means</i>' being the perfect meme for 'Epistemology', whose philosophical system bears little relation to what the word was coined to mean. As it turns out, much the same applies to Grammar. But to avoid the Inigo Montoya treatment, let's have a look at what that word is now defined to mean, which the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grammar">Merriam-Webster's online dictionary</a> has as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
1a: the study of the classes of words, their inflections (see INFLECTION sense 2), and their functions and relations in the sentence<br />
b: a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection</span></em></blockquote>
, inspiring, isn't it? What most people might not recognize as a definition of Grammar, is one that comes from a source that we'll get into below, which was a norm before Modernity got a hold of why and what we're taught today:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...Grammar [which] is "the science of speaking and writing correctly - the starting point of all liberal studies." Grammar is the cradle of all philosophy, and in a manner of speaking, the nurse of the whole study of letters..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and if the idea of Grammar as the cradle of philosophy isn't how you were taught it, I'd suggest asking some questions about the 'education' you did get, and maybe ask a few more questions about <a href="https://sourcetext.com/grammarian-tgoa-index/">why that might be</a>.
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 15%;">
Disclaimer: no, I'm no Grammarian and I still struggle with being grammatical - having only discovered its importance late in life, I'm but a bumbling admirer.</div>
<br /><br />
With that in mind, let's turn to the question asked at the end of the previous post, which was essentially that if having an epistemology of metaphysics, logic, and ethics is as important as I've argued it to be, and if most people aren't interested in even philosophy, let alone epistemology, what are we supposed to do about that? And the answer is that we don't need to teach any new subjects, we only need to teach a subject we're already teaching, but begin teaching it as we once did and are no longer doing: teach Grammar as a meaningful subject.
<br /><br />
From the earliest years of schooling (hello: 'grammar school') grammar is the first subject taught, because like <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemologys-meaning-is-meaningless.html">philosophy, which everyone has</a> whether they are conscious of it or not, everyone <i>will </i>learn grammar in some form - the words we do or do not learn to refer to our world through, what we do or do not learn of prefixes and suffixes that help us in identifying a word's nature, and all of the other parts of speech which exist to help us to understand what is being spoken of, and why - and whether crude or polished, a person's grasp of grammar is what they'll be using to think with and communicate to others through.
<br /><br />
And yet as necessary as grammar is to communication, that was understood as the minimum measure of it, as in its larger sense, grammar was to function as philosophy in miniature, as the ancient grammarian quoted above wrote: "<i>Words admitted into our ears knock on and arouse our understanding</i>", in pursuit of that clarity of expression that would bring both writer and reader nearer to a wisdom that could improve their ability to live their lives well.
<br /><br />
That purpose is not served with 'grammar lessons' of "<i><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Wide_Awake_Primer/JwFPAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=See+spot+run&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover">See Spot run. Run Spot; run fast.</a></i>". What the *author* of this 1908 primer intended instead, was primarily to make lessons so easy and trouble-free for students being introduced to "<i>...the struggle with word-forms...</i>"(!), as to ensure that "<i>...there must be no steep hills to climb...</i>" in learning.
<br /><br />
Well... mission accomplished. God help us.
<br /><br />
Such treacherously easy 'grammar lessons', pointlessly teaching what isn't worth learning, has left more than a century of student's hearts and minds comfortably ignorant of what it takes to engage with beauty, truth, and goodness, and unaware that the dark age we live in today is even worse than the last one, whose people were at least aware that what was worth learning, had seemed to have been lost.
<br /><br />
<b>Grammar as the cradle of philosophy</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirLiKA2cMJtPE0XJ9pBLqFiu2zjGAgWhdQF9caqKewe6lLsLa4Srl_M67QcvYhUaqU6t0vVWUrE1IubDFdyIQPXkXAC1-0yWMxqJd-TKml-RKIcSnIm_QodAKvuGfS6Fw06RNpIUkfxfiPXJiS_3tON1RTYdMAXvLF_SR8BGAfd-8KHkwawu3TAg/s494/Metalogicon.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="328" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirLiKA2cMJtPE0XJ9pBLqFiu2zjGAgWhdQF9caqKewe6lLsLa4Srl_M67QcvYhUaqU6t0vVWUrE1IubDFdyIQPXkXAC1-0yWMxqJd-TKml-RKIcSnIm_QodAKvuGfS6Fw06RNpIUkfxfiPXJiS_3tON1RTYdMAXvLF_SR8BGAfd-8KHkwawu3TAg/s320/Metalogicon.jpg" /></a></div>
The ability to recognize and put into words what is real and true, and to extract meaning out of what others have written, was once seen as the vital and beating heart of an education in the liberal arts. The alternative definition of Grammar given above, came from one of those now forgotten guides to education that've been around since the <i>1100s</i>, a work called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Metalogicon-Twelfth-Century-Defense-Logical-Trivium/dp/1589880587">The Metalogicon</a> (which I highly recommend to modern readers - even though it was written by an Englishman before English as we know it existed, it's the principles of it that matter, not the particulars - it is <i>exceedingly</i> relevant to our world today), which had been prepared for England's Thomas Beckett by an English monk,
<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/john-salisbury/">John of Salisbury</a>, and it has a well-earned reputation for teaching grammar as a subject that employs metaphysics, logic, and ethical considerations, in the intelligent use of language.
<br /><br />
From <i>that </i>form of Grammar School education, students gained a handle on the liberal arts, which:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...are called "arts' [either] because they delimit [artant] by rules and precepts; or from virtue, in Greek known as ares, which strengthens minds to apprehend the ways of wisdom; or from reason, called arso by the Greeks, which the arts nourish and cause to grow. They are called "liberal," either because the ancients took care to have their children instructed in them; or because their object is to effect man's liberation, so that, freed from cares, he may devote himself to wisdom. More often than not, they liberate us from cares incompatible with wisdom. They often even free us from worry about [material] necessities, so that the mind may have still greater liberty to apply itself to philosophy.
<br /><br />
Chapter 13. Whence grammar gets its name.<br />
Among all the liberal arts, the first is logic, and specifically that part of logic which gives initial instruction about words. As has already been explained, the word "logic" has a broad meaning, and is not restricted exclusively to the science of argumentative reasoning. [It includes] <b>Grammar [which] is "the science of speaking and writing correctly - the starting point of all liberal studies." Grammar is the cradle of all philosophy</b>, and in a manner of speaking, the nurse of the whole study of letters..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and in that he makes clear how the essence of what we call 'epistemology' (in name only) today, was effectively being practiced centuries before the Modern's term was ever coined, and it is no coincidence that that understanding, approach, and expectation, began to vanish soon after the Modern's 'new' 4th branch of philosophy became known under that term.
<br /><br />
It's important to point out that the ability to understand and communicate which came out of that Pre-Modern grammatical cradle, was once a normal expectation of a 'grammar school education' (as was having some ability to read and write Greek & Latin, up until the 20th Century). It was a normal expectation that when the grammarian taught students how to read, he wasn't just teaching how to sound out words from the letters on a page, but was <a href="https://sourcetext.com/grammarian-less-than-words-can-say-index-html/">teaching</a> how to read, think, question and reason their way through the thoughts those words formed, and their own grasp of them, in an intelligible manner, with the goal of understanding what is real and true and what is not.
<br /><br />
Learning the grammar of what words mean and what the parts of speech refer to in the process of thinking, from "<i><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4212/pg4212.html">the best that has been thought and said</a></i>" - not textbooks as we know them - was in a very worthwhile sense, '<i>doing metaphysics</i>'; as being able to understand and confirm the statements and conclusions of those works while also assessing how accurate and intelligible their claims are, is <i>'doing logic'</i>; just as assuring that an idea is treated honestly and appropriately - neither inflated, minimized, or turned away from - is <i>'doing ethics'</i>. And whether engaged in extracting a sound understanding from what you've read, or putting your own understanding into words that others could understand your meaning from, conveying both a belief, and identifying whether or not its meaning is justified, is in the most meaningful sense '<i>doing</i> epistemology'.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">If you'd like to see how utterly different our notions of an education are today - in every way - from that which formed our Founders, read "<a href="https://archive.org/details/educationoffound0000jame_e4t5/page/n6/mode/1up">Education of The Founding Fathers of The Republic</a>" by James J. Walsh (1936). Truly, America was founded at the last possible moment in history... even a decade later, it likely could not have been successfully carried out.</div>
Students who were educated in that way, as were most in our Founders' era, were not only skillful in the use of language, but were in the habit of sounding thoughts out and following them to their furthest reaches, and so would see implications that were otherwise too easily missed. It's not too much to say that America would not exist, if its people had not been educated in the habits of mind that gave the deepest consideration to what were
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0199">the greatest of all reflections on human nature</a>..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and yet today it's too often considered a 'successful education' when a student manages to graduate with the ability to 'decode' letters into words, as if having the ability to read, is the same thing as having learned <i>how </i>to read. For the student who's skilled at finding useful facts and picking out gotchas of '<i>i before e, except after c</i>', but doesn't comprehend how language conveys meaning (or why it'd matter), what can they meaningfully get out of decoding the words of the 'great books'? They, as Daniel McCarthy noted in <a href="https://kirkcenter.org/uncategorized/russell-kirks-book-of-love/">his review of Russel Kirk's "The Conservative Mind"</a>,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> "<i>...not infrequently have difficulty with works that must be read the way music is heard.</i>" </span></em></blockquote>
, and what such students are able to receive from the greatest treasures of our Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian culture, will, at best, be taken in through a verbal straw, rather than the firehose that a good education would've provided, and the frustration of getting so little out of so much effort, too often turns them away from, and even against, the 'great books' they hadn't learned how to treasure.
<br /><br />
Of course that realization is what those who desired a more easily controlled populace, figured out long ago.
<br /><br />
Modernists on <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/07/disorienting-america-modern-thinking.html">both sides of the Atlantic</a> were fully aware of how essential it was to their 'new philosophy' (of old sophistries) and to the 'new man' they wanted to create with it, that people's minds not be furnished with the priceless treasures of the West, as those fostered the ability to spot the snares of ignorance which the unfurnished mind was more easily entrapped with. They quickly realized that in order to have a populace who'd be willing to accept what they were told they needed to know, without habitually questioning what they were told and who told it to them, it wasn't the publishers and booksellers they needed to gain control of, but <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/04/remove-this-dangerous-technology-from.html"> the schoolhouse</a> and what and how its students were taught within it. After all, there's little need to engage in the messy business of banning and burning books and authors, when the same results can be had by simply teaching students that grammar is nothing more than a number of arbitrary rules of
where to place commas and apostrophes and to make sure you write '<i>i before e except after c... sometimes</i>'... as teaching 'grammar' in <i>that </i>manner, is even more damaging to a student's ability and interest in reading, than not teaching grammar at all.
<br /><br />
Learning the rules of Grammar is of course important and necessary, just as erecting a scaffolding is necessary and useful in constructing a building. But to focus upon the rules, as less a means, than your <i>purpose</i>, is like focusing only on constructing scaffolding, while ignoring the building that it was supposed to help with constructing. Through the use of ever more efficient modern textbooks of 'Grammar', which focused upon teaching students to memorize 'the rules of grammar', while neglecting the very best uses of language known to man which demonstrate the best use of those rules, in the language that could have helped their students to learn them by heart... without that, students' familiarity with those works soon began to fade from popular awareness. As people cheered the efficiency and usefulness of innovations like Noah Webster's exceedingly popular - and very useful -'<i>Blue Back Speller</i>'s, few noticed what students were no longer learning to read from, and why.
<br /><br />
It's of course easy to see how far '<i>See spot run!</i>' has fallen away from the language used in Webster's spellers, but what's not as easily seen, is how far the efficient lessons of textbooks such as Webster's, had already fallen away from the language of Cicero & Shakespeare that had been used before them. Analogous to the pull of physical gravity, under which a falling object accelerates at the rate of 32' per second, per second', the downward pull of intellectual gravity's rate of acceleration, is measured through the absence of eloquence and wisdom which is typically only noticed by the parent, not the child, and the great-great-great grandparent's perspective never enters the picture. And unlike physical gravity, where acceleration is eventually stopped by impact with the ground, the impact of intellectual gravity is felt in an immediate and continuous endarkening of the mind, which is only indirectly noticed by the victim through increasing feelings of anxiety, confusion, and lack of self-control.
<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjj06XHe1hnPf2Uh2dTEn_XaS85fB04xIuX-0Vg_oKkX6Dto8MmHwhddd_fGFLKY0zwf8rv1f2jyKLuczLCzcML0wX9s6uy2O2YafnvbqqIeTSxCnjQYbdeg0gZIyIomadDiXUUf0b9ovSid25dBTsRouMBtK5irXTEBUZ0mUmpOi6ibgNl9Jd5w/s822/ReadingGraph.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="324" data-original-width="822" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjj06XHe1hnPf2Uh2dTEn_XaS85fB04xIuX-0Vg_oKkX6Dto8MmHwhddd_fGFLKY0zwf8rv1f2jyKLuczLCzcML0wX9s6uy2O2YafnvbqqIeTSxCnjQYbdeg0gZIyIomadDiXUUf0b9ovSid25dBTsRouMBtK5irXTEBUZ0mUmpOi6ibgNl9Jd5w/s320/ReadingGraph.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Nevertheless, for those who take the trouble to look past the appearances of the moment, it is easy enough to see that stepping off the educational ledge of the best that had been thought and said, into the textbook plunge from <a href="https://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/historyofreading.html">the Blue Back Spellers</a>, to the McGuffey Readers (<span style="font-size: x-small;">this will shock many, as both seem great from our perspective downstream, but consider that they too are downstream from what came before - a post on this to follow</span>), to 'Whole Language', 'See Spot Run', Ebonics, 'whiteness', and whatever new horror that tomorrow will bring, has been demonstrating intellectual gravity's ever accelerating rate of conceptual freefall into the language we use today in promoting narratives without regard for the truth, wisdom, or beauty, that they do, or even could, contain.
<br /><br />
Those who shake their heads and fists at what's happening in our schools today, as if it's a recent result of negligence, error, and/or incompetence, would do better to spend less time looking for errors and incompetence, and give more consideration to how students receiving <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-power-of-ignorance-back-to-basics.html">such an education as that</a> might be of value to those who're insisting that you and your children receive it. If you start following where questions such as that might lead, they'll bring to your attention instances such as when Woodrow Wilson's speech on 'education' to the new 'High School' teachers, <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_a_Liberal_Education">said the quiet part out loud,</a> back in 1909:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks..."</span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSBnu5eGOw2YZkBtKJfOfPbSZWdjQkRBEaJb4z_KXAhquN01qnywOJg9M4p62E0T3ryIpPG8EmwWziPoZ64B6IySwqSHl703WX7iBWVpJuTjBk3dc-EWQHrUJsMDXks9tnnkHJgurDsQCjPRxeA5yWb3f8CLQeoAr2CubRC8hXsmFk2fb0iIS6dA/s850/Arendt_quote-the-aim-of-totalitarian-education.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="850" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSBnu5eGOw2YZkBtKJfOfPbSZWdjQkRBEaJb4z_KXAhquN01qnywOJg9M4p62E0T3ryIpPG8EmwWziPoZ64B6IySwqSHl703WX7iBWVpJuTjBk3dc-EWQHrUJsMDXks9tnnkHJgurDsQCjPRxeA5yWb3f8CLQeoAr2CubRC8hXsmFk2fb0iIS6dA/s320/Arendt_quote-the-aim-of-totalitarian-education.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/08/never-forget-that-education-reform-is.html">Never forget</a>: The modernists goals for 'education' <i>was not</i> well educated students, it was (and is) a means of implanting the most 'useful facts' (what today we'd call a 'narrative') into the minds of the students in their care, so as to progressively produce - <i>manufacture </i>- a populace who're less questioning and more accepting of what authorities tell them, as a means of making a more perfect world (under their power). They felt then and still feel today, that their ends fully justify their means, and in their judgment, what <i>is</i> real and true, plays no part in either (except to interfere in their plans).
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 20%;">
In one of the rare bright spots of the modern world, more than at any other time in history, those works are <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/">available to anyone today</a> than ever before, and those works that taught <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.276709/page/n1/mode/2up">how to mine them</a> for meaning, are as well, which can be done either in the privacy of their own home, or through a computer, tablet, or even apps on their phone, wherever else they might be (I've had a library in my pocket for a couple decades now. What... you thought I was just glad to see you? ;-) ).</div>
If you ask your child's 'English Teacher' what the purpose of teaching grammar is, their answer should include at the very least, that its purpose is to bring clarity to what they read and write, in order to better understand and communicate those thoughts which they are being brought into contact with in their materials and lessons. If not, if its practice is indifferent to, or even at odds with how to use language to understand and communicate such ideas to others, what possible value can grammar (never mind philosophy and epistemology) have, and why should any student be subjected to wasting years of their life studying and memorizing intentionally meaningless rules?
<br /><br />
<b>Education for Life</b><br />
The sort of education that's concerned primarily with transmitting 'useful skills', isn't one that can enrich your life and character. <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/02/for-education-to-be-meaningful-its.html">Frederick Douglass</a> risked everything as a slave, to study the best of what had been thought and said, by illegally purchasing his treasured '<a href="https://archive.org/details/columbianoratorc00bing/page/n5/mode/2up">Columbian Orator</a>', in order to escape the limitation of only being trained in useful skills. He described that kind of training in his essay on the
"<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/blessings-of-liberty-and-education/">Blessings of Liberty and Education</a>", as intending for students:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... learning only those skills that were useful to their masters..." </span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3X8-nKbarFc7DT5emgqo6OUP5hNDb5GfYb2OpdQ-8nVjenUY1Zh1YFHW0EJdUiiyj21ZuaWdfF0V41enx4q_6SlI2fvPuzO1kFkupLRket50bPAFYZtK06EVBKaUDbgRnvlmPiGQthuYwH-G0Xqw6kX_kztuqSaq0YYDejo9pLf5Cx1heUv26A/s788/FB_IMG_1700528011225.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="788" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3X8-nKbarFc7DT5emgqo6OUP5hNDb5GfYb2OpdQ-8nVjenUY1Zh1YFHW0EJdUiiyj21ZuaWdfF0V41enx4q_6SlI2fvPuzO1kFkupLRket50bPAFYZtK06EVBKaUDbgRnvlmPiGQthuYwH-G0Xqw6kX_kztuqSaq0YYDejo9pLf5Cx1heUv26A/s320/FB_IMG_1700528011225.jpg" /></a></div>
, trading as it does the development of understanding and wisdom, for the confused equivocation of shallow cleverness with the skill to manipulate materials, their fellows, and of course themselves as well, in order to gain some measure of the world, at the expense of the wealth which cannot be weighed upon those scales.
<br /><br />
Those who give their time and attention to "<i><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4212/pg4212.html">the best that has been thought and said</a></i>" in our culture's stories, arts, letters, and religion, <i>will</i> benefit from the experience of reading from what is well written, engaging, and thought provoking, such as is found in the pages of Homer, the Greek Tragedians, The Bible, Shakespeare... Dostoevsky... J.R.R. Tolkien... even Agatha Christie. In doing so, a person enters into the landscapes and palaces of the West, and to the extent that they pause and ponder upon their surroundings, they're drinking from its philosophical well. But how deeply they'll be able to drink from the well of the West, will be limited by how familiar they are with the philosophy with which that well operates.
<br /><br />
Of course, most people have little need or interest in studying philosophy, and likely especially not epistemology - but fortunately, they don't need to.
<br /><br />
However wise it would be to familiarize ourselves more explicitly with both, a premodern education that intelligently teaches the grammatical basics through the words, concepts, and ideas of the best that has been thought and said on what actually matters in life, and how to convey your understanding of that, will be implicitly teaching the habit of epistemological thinking to students as they identify what is being referred to and how (metaphysics), learn how to judge the veracity of that (logic), and recognize what that understanding requires of them in thought and action (ethics). That, which at one time was the normal expectation of a 'Grammar School Education' through quality literature, would work just as well for us, as it did throughout our Founders' era, for them. If, that is, we also point out the dangers which we can see from our vantage point in time, that were not yet obvious to them, in their time.
<br /><br />
The Modernists not only don't teach that, they ridicule and undermine that, and even when they are made to teach some part of it, they do so disjointedly and through a materialist, pragmatic, and utilitarian (to say nothing of Marxist) lens, which is more harmful than having learned nothing of such matters at all.
<br /><br />
Similarly with philosophy itself, as I've been pointing out over <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Epistemology%3A%20You%20keep%20using%20that%20word">the last several posts</a>, instead of teaching the unity of its three branches (metaphysics, logic, and ethics) as you might identify the head, torso, and limbs of a person in order to better understand and appreciate the whole human body, the modernists approach the subject as a vivisectionist would, using their new '4th branch of philosophy' as a tool for severing one from the other.
<br /><br />
The modernist does what they do because they believe that the world will be improved by remaking it (and you) in their own image... for 'the greater good', which necessarily requires abandoning the pursuit of truth and wisdom, in favor of seeking power over you (which is the only means they can experience their 'reality' through), and that requires that you think of such things as grammar and philosophy as being little more than arbitrary and meaningless rules. The power which that gives them over you, leaves you with little or no control over yourself - how could it be otherwise? In such a world as that, you don't get ahead by understanding what is real and true, but by studying meaninglessly useful facts in order to '<i>get good grades and get a good job!</i>', which those schools had been designed to fit your life into, as a harmlessly useful cog in that world which, in their expert opinion, would best serve 'the greater good'.
<br /><br />
For those inclined to say that <i>'We pick up grammar, even philosophy, through day to day experience and so there's no need to waste time on studying either!'</i>, I'd advise you to keep in mind something about the experience of experience: untutored experience is limited to the good and bad you have experienced <i>so far</i>, which is always one step behind the next hard knock you've not yet learned from experience to look out for. To say nothing of the common experience of those who don't know where to put their 'i's and 'e's and apostrophes, makes them the easy butt of jokes from those who take pride in their belief that those rules are the height of learning - learning by such painful experience is possible, but it is by no means preferable. In the end, experience shows that one very useful benefit of a good education, is that it enables you to learn from the invaluable - and often fatal - experiences of some of the best who've ever lived.
<br /><br />
Learning grammar and literature as the premoderns taught it is not in any way opposed to benefits of Science & Technology that we enjoy in the world today, on the contrary, it's the best way to ensure that both continue to develop (and less likely that we'll kill ourselves with it). If your initial reaction to the mention of premodern society is to snicker & roll your eyes, you've probably internalized the modernists' deflection of <a href="https://lyceum.institute/philosophical-happy-hour/2023/08/22/studiousness-vs-curiosity/">temporal provincialism</a>, which preserves our ignorance of what they understood, with an easily derisive laugh at the 'foolish' appearances of those not yet 'smart enough' to have our technology.
<br /><br />
<b>Escaping from the Dark Ages once again</b><br />
If you look past the modernist blinders, you'll find that it was not the modernists that introduced us to the 'scientific method' - <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html">that began with</a> English monks in the 1100s, who realized that if God said the world was 'good', it would be good to investigate how it worked. Neither was it the '<i>Age of Enlightenment</i>' that introduced the logical method and 'Reason<sup><span style="font-size: 55%;">TM</span></sup>' into our world - as you've seen from the Metalogicon, those were already central to the Liberal Arts that the premoderns educated students to know and understand. Despite what popular notions would have you believe, the leading lights of premodern thought, are the ones who carried the West through classical times, revived and rejuvenated them through Christian efforts during the middle ages (see <a href="https://www.medievalists.net/2021/01/alcuin-charlemagne/">Alcuin of York's influence</a> under Charlemagne), and kept that wisdom alive and accessible through works like the Metalogicon and '<a href="https://archive.org/details/didascaliconmedi00hugh/page/n7/mode/2up">The Didascalicon' of Hugh of St. Victor</a> in the 1100s, and on through St. Aquinas in the 1300s and beyond.
<br /><br />
It was the premodern's focus on reality, logic, and reason, that made the Renaissance possible, and gave rise to that better aspects of thinking which we associate with the Enlightenment, and became the basis for the scientific developments we enjoy today. That same practice can get us through the dark ages we find ourselves in the midst of today - the absence of truth, beauty, and understanding, is the definition of a dark age - as learning well the ordering of and aims of language, will reveal to a reader what sound thinking is and is not, and will expose the follies lurking within what they'd previously assumed to be 'obviously true'.
<br /><br />
As Frederick Douglass put it,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...Education, on the other hand, means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light only by which men can be free. To deny education to any people is one of the greatest crimes against human nature. It is to deny them the means of freedom and the rightful pursuit of happiness, and to defeat the very end of their being..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and what it teaches is of real, practical, and timeless value, to your life. An education that springs from treating grammar as the 'cradle of philosophy', is one that will help develop an epistemology of metaphysics, logic, and ethics in a reader, and situate them in a world that is meaningful. That approach, even when begun upon the thinnest of fare, will incline the student towards concepts that are both higher and deeper, and disclose to them what is of value in living a life worth living, and reveal what is likely to hinder that.
<br /><br />
For all of the shortcomings and errors that were present in premodern philosophy and the liberal arts, and there were many, their fundamental approach, including their honest errors in applying it, were and are far superior to the dishonest and malevolent approach that pervades modernist philosophy, the humanities, and wackademia in general. You needn't read much of <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/2023/10/kindergarten-asylum-sanism-education/">modern misosophy</a> to realize that clarity, understanding, and a respect for what is real and true, have been designated as enemy combatants by it. Sadly, those 'theories of knowledge' which modernist epistemology dominates our world through today, have attacked grammar and literature from the start, and have a lot to do with why '<i>the best that has been thought and said</i>', a number of which Frederick Douglass's treasured 'Columbian Orator' enabled him to study, are now nowhere to be found in the materials which students are typically 'educated' with today.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXBihZP4WRhpMXZLaiyV3cvwNAFNgvx5ArjNOJHlZxgqS1golSl6D_GgwZVAiYZvVIQmVnX1Cwilz7CF6FsSfLfmcjXqSxq6w6Zo16E6TLMwVt8xIUCwr7GJ88MEqWU0fxeqqy-0nsshVETl1ewFtjA71_zYd9PEF2JQbGKQWJYv6uzIaFUY4qqQ/s850/FD_Education.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="850" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXBihZP4WRhpMXZLaiyV3cvwNAFNgvx5ArjNOJHlZxgqS1golSl6D_GgwZVAiYZvVIQmVnX1Cwilz7CF6FsSfLfmcjXqSxq6w6Zo16E6TLMwVt8xIUCwr7GJ88MEqWU0fxeqqy-0nsshVETl1ewFtjA71_zYd9PEF2JQbGKQWJYv6uzIaFUY4qqQ/s400/FD_Education.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
Those promoting 'Ebonics', or who criticize paying attention to grammar as 'whiteness', or promising that students can each have '<i>their own truths</i>', are not enlightening them, they are ensuring that their thinking will suffer from the absence of beauty, a lack of regard for truth, and little or no understanding of what is right and wrong, which are the hallmarks of our new dark age. The unfortunate 'good student' of such lessons as these, are led by them into a linguistic ghetto that's sure to be well populated both by those trained into their own 'activist' mindset, and those limited to comprehending only Woodrow Wilson's '<i>specific difficult manual tasks</i>'... and of course, it's sure to keep them at a usefully safe distance from those 'who know best', who are those who did not '<i>...forego the privileges of a liberal education...</i>' (corrupted, though even that may be).
<br /><br />
In the name of '<i>education reform!</i>' especially across the 20th century, those materials that had been understood to be the most worth studying, have been removed from modern school systems. Such reforms have so <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/08/accepting-science-of-education-reform.html">savaged our students ability to read</a>, that a sizable number of those who 'graduate' from school today, are unable to comprehend much beyond empirical step by step instructions, with the result that a horrifically large percentage of those who're able only to 'decode' words, see no purpose or pleasure in doing so - and so are becoming assimilated into the machinery themselves. Perhaps no better example of which, is the enthusiastic support by faculty and students for the murderous terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, over that of Israel and its people.
<br /><br />
In the end, if grammar, logic, and reasoning, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-1st-lesson-from-dark-wood-of-school.html">do not lead you to a better understanding</a> of who you are, and what is real and true, and how to understand that yourself and communicate it to others, what possible value can such an 'education' have (to you)? Is the key to escaping a dark age more likely to lay in understanding the meaning that flows through the words which you understand your life with, or through the careless disregard of both their meaning and consequences?
<br /><br />
Giving due consideration to those words which your mind is racing around in, putting your thoughts in order, verifying their soundness, and ensuring that the direction they're taking you in is justified and true, is what Grammar (and more formally, Epistemology) is meant to aid your mind in doing. Whatever tends to undermine, muddle, or otherwise degrade your ability to grasp and use such knowledge as you have, will tend to be harmful to your life and your ability to live it, and you should be on your guard against that (especially if it comes wrapped up in a diploma or degree).
<br /><br />
And with that in mind, my next series of posts will start digging into how modernity has used its 'Epistemology' as the '4th Branch of Philosophy', to establish a new 'Social Epistemology', which gives the illusion of support to some of the most disastrous ideologies of the 20th and 21st centuries, such as Socialism, Communism, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-semantic-deception-of-sel-social.html" target="_blank">Diversity-Equity-Inclusion, Social and Emotional Learning</a>, etc., etc., etc.,..
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-55171993003476443082023-11-23T11:53:00.002-06:002023-11-23T11:53:19.298-06:00Happy Thanksgiving to one and allFor all my friends and family who understand the importance of talking to each other, and discussing all matters about family and friends, and religion and politics and nutrition, and who know how to disagree reasonably without becoming disagreeable - I give thanks that you are in our lives!
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTdM45ZuDBmOKiWE5Ve4zEA7YNNNNF7bi07b5edMmplMDQ6iXFOXHZ3IJJxzssetPHt7ozdR_12tXPZ7LVvwBmP59LPg8IWjO2MYT1emhFMRK_bBvL4lf2HIiHj_mR291QgmQlS3s2JfoWiPf92DUiLCm4By5l3CGqd3lvtA8ycgVDnwMxBA0/s254/ThanksGivingDinner.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="198" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTdM45ZuDBmOKiWE5Ve4zEA7YNNNNF7bi07b5edMmplMDQ6iXFOXHZ3IJJxzssetPHt7ozdR_12tXPZ7LVvwBmP59LPg8IWjO2MYT1emhFMRK_bBvL4lf2HIiHj_mR291QgmQlS3s2JfoWiPf92DUiLCm4By5l3CGqd3lvtA8ycgVDnwMxBA0/s400/ThanksGivingDinner.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>I am thankful for the ability to make an error.</li><li>I am thankful for the desire to correct it.</li><li>I am thankful for living in a Nation founded upon the understanding that all Men must be free to do both, in body and soul.</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
The Western world didn't catch on because of its answers... those are still being argued about more than 3,000 years on... but because of its people being willing and able to ask the right questions, with the willingness and desire to compare their answers to reality, and to pursue the questions which those answers will lead to. <div><br /></div><div>Some questions that will give you so many reasons to be thankful, are:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>What is real and how do we know it?</li><li>What is Good? Why should we care?</li><li>How can we recognize what is not Good?</li><li>What is a Good life?</li><li>What is Happiness?</li><li>Should what is Right and Wrong, guide our actions?</li><li>What is Beauty?...What is Truth?...What is Justice?</li><li>What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
Ask the right questions, with those who are willing to question their own answers, and let the Good Lord and reality do the rest.
<br /><br />
Question - not doubt, mind you, but question, what you assume to be true, and then what you know, and give thanks for the life you are blessed to build upon that, for it will surely be one that's well worth giving thanks for - and give thanks to God without whom there would be nothing to be thankful for.<div><br /></div><div>Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!</div></div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-71254428999246232692023-11-11T14:03:00.002-06:002023-11-11T14:03:32.328-06:00For Our Veterans on Veterans Day - Thank You For Persisting 'The Harder Right', Across Time<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 80%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 30%;"><strong>William Ernest Henley. 1849–1903<br />Invictus</strong><br />
OUT of the night that covers me,<br />
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,<br />
I thank whatever gods may be<br />
For my unconquerable soul.<br />
<br />
In the fell clutch of circumstance<br />
I have not winced nor cried aloud.<br />
Under the bludgeonings of chance<br />
My head is bloody, but unbowed.<br />
<br />
Beyond this place of wrath and tears<br />
Looms but the Horror of the shade,<br />
And yet the menace of the years<br />
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.<br />
<br />
It matters not how strait the gate,<br />
How charged with punishments the scroll,<br />
I am the master of my fate:<br />
I am the captain of my soul.<br /><br />
<strong>Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837)<br />The Concord Hymn</strong><br />
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,<br />
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;<br />
Here once the embattled farmers stood;<br />
And fired the shot heard round the world.<br />
<br />
The foe long since in silence slept;<br />
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,<br />
And Time the ruined bridge has swept<br />
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.<br />
<br />
On this green bank, by this soft stream,<br />
We place with joy a votive stone,<br />
That memory may their deeds redeem,<br />
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.<br />
<br />
O Thou who made those heroes dare<br />
To die, and leave their children free, --<br />
Bid Time and Nature gently spare<br />
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.<br /><br />
<strong>John McCrae. 1872–1918<br />In Flanders Fields</strong><br />
IN Flanders fields the poppies blow<br />
Between the crosses, row on row,<br />
That mark our place; and in the sky<br />
The larks, still bravely singing, fly<br />
Scarce heard amid the guns below.<br />
<br />
We are the Dead. Short days ago<br />
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,<br />
Loved and were loved, and now we lie<br />
In Flanders fields.<br />
<br />
Take up our quarrel with the foe:<br />
To you from failing hands we throw<br />
The torch; be yours to hold it high.<br />
If ye break faith with us who die<br />
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow<br />
In Flanders fields.</div>
Commemorating Veterans Day once again, on the “<i>11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month</i>”, with two earlier memories (and a bonus of soul food in the sidebar); one from seven years ago now, which was itself remembering this day from 5 years before that, and doing so recalls what persists across time on this day, our fellows who choose 'the harder right' by volunteering to serve in our military. No matter where they may end up being stationed, when they volunteer to serve, they are volunteering to put their lives on the line, period. There is no assurance that they won't at some point be sent to physically put their lives at risk, be injured, or be killed. None. Whether their service ends up being given entirely stateside in administrative duties, or repeatedly at hazard in war zones, the worst case is risked by all at that moment when they sign their lives on the dotted line. In pledging their lives to support and defend our Constitution, they serve to secure to us the ability to live lives worth living (should we choose to).
<br />
<br />
To all of our Veterans - Thank You.
<br />
<br />
[And now, back to 2015:]<br />
For Veterans Day this year, I'm going with a re-post from four years ago, which isn't - for me or others - the typical Veterans Day post, but for me it really goes to the heart of the occasion. This post came back into mind a couple days ago when a 'Memories' app popped up some pictures from the 2011 Veterans Day parade in St. Louis that I took part in with Chris & Dana Loesch, "Patch" Po/ed Patriot and our kids [Patch just confirmed my sketchy pictureless memory, <a href="http://stacyontheright.com/about-stacy/" target="_blank">Stacy Washington</a> <i>was </i>with us too). The memories were a nice tug - I mostly only see Patch online now, and the Loesch's have since moved to Dallas (catch <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/dana-loesch/">"Dana" on the BlazeTV</a>), but more than the sentimental value, was the point of this post, well-illustrated in the movie clip, of the importance of choosing the <i>Harder Right -</i> not only in the sense of putting your life on the line for it, but the importance of choosing the harder right to a life worth living, and that is what I associate most with our Veterans.<br />
<br />
Our Veterans volunteer their lives onto the line, and in pledging their lives to support and defend our <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/" target="_blank">Constitution</a>, they serve to secure to us the ability to live a life worth living, should we also take the harder right, and choose to.<br />
<br />
To our Veterans - Thank You.<br />
<br />
[And now, back to 2011:]<br />
For Veterans Day, a clip that doesn't at first appear to have anything to do with Veterans or Veterans Day. It's the climactic scene of a movie that's really grown on me over the years, The Emperor's Club. In this, the point of not only an Education, but of a life well lived - or squandered - is conveyed in just a few moments.<br />
<br />
The now aging Mr. Hundert, a Classics Professor, is found in the restroom after a debate competition, by his former student, Sedgewick Bell, who is now grown and launching a campaign for the Senate. Bell was a student he'd tried far more than he should have to help, and Hundert has realized that Sedgewick has yet again cheated in the "Mr. Julius Caesar" debate, which Mr. Hundert was moderating.<br />
<br />
<div style="float: right;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" class="b-hbp-video b-uploaded" frameborder="0" height="266" id="BLOGGER-video-d8416d7cac86f256-6631" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dykGRHzKv_sE4YaUzOCEygL9iBSBwa-Vc99OLpTDq57qwKytldu66qfrgzeWrAJ855utP0OI9FLLXD9-hShxPHw2kzNDyp7hxFd4USkIGMbYOLbToGRHyx1yhLF3R1W" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
He lets his former student know that he knows he tried to cheat, again...<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>Mr. Hundert</strong>:"I'm a teacher Sedgwick, and I failed you. But I'll give you one last lecture, if I may. All of us, at some point, are forced to look at ourselves in the mirror, and see who we really are, and when that day comes for Sedgewick, you'll be confronted with a life lived without virtue, without principle - for that I pity you. End of lesson."<br />
<br />
<strong>Sedgewick Bell</strong>:"What can I say Mr. Hundert? Who gives a shit. Honestly, who out there gives a shit about your principles and your virtues. I mean, look at you, what do you have to show for yourself? I live in the real world, where people do what they need to do to get what they want, and if that means lying, and cheating... then so be it. <br />
So I am going to go out there, and I am going to win that election Mr. Hundert, and you will see me <strong>EVERY</strong>where! And I'll worry about my 'contribution' later.<br />
(Sound of a toilet flushing, stall opens, Sedgewick's little boy comes out, stares at his dad in disgust)<br />
<strong>Sedgewick Bell</strong>:"Robert? Robert...."<br />
(Robert turns and leaves)<br />
Sedgewick stares after him, stares down, glances at Mr. Hundert, and leaves.</span></em></blockquote>
What Mr. Hundert has, he has without need of power, position or wealth... what Cedric threw away, he can't replace through <em>any</em> amount of power, position or wealth.<br />
<br />
The best things in life are free... but you've got to earn them, and sometimes fight for them; and some worthy few even choose to risk their lives for your chance to enjoy them. <br />
<br />
Thank you to all those who chose the harder right, and especially the Veterans who agreed to risk their lives for it, if need be.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE - Pictures from the St. Louis Veterans Day Parade</b><br />
Special thanks to <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/" target="_blank">Dana Loesh</a> for inviting us to march with her crew in the parade, my daughter & I were honored to show our support.<br />
<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr> <td valign="top"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="//4.bp.blogspot.com/-YFPoiG5RShs/TrbeMjuhl7I/AAAAAAAABK8/2B6B2hMg9lI/s1600/DanaCrewVDayParade.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YFPoiG5RShs/TrbeMjuhl7I/AAAAAAAABK8/2B6B2hMg9lI/s320/DanaCrewVDayParade.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dana Loesh (in a strep throat burqa), Me, Patch Adams and Chris Loesch , ready to roll</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td> <td valign="top"><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="//2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qrs2F0uzWvY/TrbeL-uCqmI/AAAAAAAABK0/6DKsL8esHe8/s1600/DanaShowVDayParade.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qrs2F0uzWvY/TrbeL-uCqmI/AAAAAAAABK0/6DKsL8esHe8/s320/DanaShowVDayParade.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
... coming around the corner... (pic swiped from Patch Adams)</td> </tr>
<tr> <td valign="top"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="//3.bp.blogspot.com/-_A5Zy_fNF50/Trbglyld6WI/AAAAAAAABLE/8oMA-g1DhEU/s1600/VDaySoldiersMemorial.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_A5Zy_fNF50/Trbglyld6WI/AAAAAAAABLE/8oMA-g1DhEU/s320/VDaySoldiersMemorial.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Parading past Soldiers Memorial</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td> <td valign="top"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="//1.bp.blogspot.com/-cfpVtCfMmKs/TrbeL5EhVGI/AAAAAAAABKk/9Gs3dYP8pHY/s1600/VDayParade.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cfpVtCfMmKs/TrbeL5EhVGI/AAAAAAAABKk/9Gs3dYP8pHY/s320/VDayParade.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The best message of all!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<a href="//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGSzj4Gu3SQ&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Patch posted a video</a> that should be an alarming shame in contrasts to all. For those who did turn out for the parade yesterday, thank you, your quality isn't questioned, but for the quantities of others who couldn't be bothered, shame on you.</div>
<div style="clear: both;"></div>
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-15415319378025185942023-11-01T23:13:00.000-05:002023-11-01T23:13:24.203-05:00Would you recognize it if one of your beliefs was wrong? How? - You keep using that word 5
We've looked at how <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemologys-meaning-is-meaningless.html" target="_blank">Metaphysics</a>, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/logic-observing-and-deactivating.html" target="_blank">Logic</a>, and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping.html" target="_blank">Ethics</a>, support a proper '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html" target="_blank">theory of knowledge for justified belief</a></i>', but what does it take to realize that what you believe is right, is actually wrong? For instance, we noted that it was once acceptable behavior in turbulent times for leading Romans to publish lists of people to be rounded up and killed for the good of the state (proscribed), whereas today those actions would not (we hope) be looked upon as examples of upstanding civic mindedness - why not?
<br /><br />
Because they didn't know any better?
<br /><br />
What do you mean by 'know'? Did they just lack the facts? If we could zoom a modern Civics textbook back in time to them, with key lines underlined and the a) b) c) quizzes marked with the answers which clearly demonstrate that killing selected people in the streets was unjustified and 'wrong' - do you think that would change their minds? And maybe history too? But of course, we don't need a time machine to test and debunk this theory of knowledge, as we only have to look at the current practices of any school district that's been utilizing the <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/27/how-to-disprove-the-6-most-outrageous-myths-of-the-1619-project/">immediately refuted '1619 Project'</a>, to teach their students 'history' with. It didn't matter at all to those schools that its 'facts' have been refuted, they actively disregarded <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/1619-project-creator-admits-it-is-not-a-history-but-a-fight-to-control-the-national-narrative/">and excused</a> the textbook as 'narrative history', and continued on with teaching it.
<br /><br />
No, <i>'facts'</i> do very little to change the beliefs of those who want to believe, what they want to believe.
<br /><br />
Why not?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJV0PoOU00BvQt5y2SZzvW4WodRVoBup_GcQAXdLWwNVAzRceBVTKXamzoHaMgWgUUWbivRuV6hc3Rvb27i80ogK3CkAuiRO5KEGR1KeCYmGmdc-sHr9jyhpyhgcwkV_WEXKNNwzsnxVBWBWCIMpG_WDzmVdlz1MALpFWUK1MSIO5ABvdNNc8FFQ/s766/CostOfModernityThanos.png" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="766" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJV0PoOU00BvQt5y2SZzvW4WodRVoBup_GcQAXdLWwNVAzRceBVTKXamzoHaMgWgUUWbivRuV6hc3Rvb27i80ogK3CkAuiRO5KEGR1KeCYmGmdc-sHr9jyhpyhgcwkV_WEXKNNwzsnxVBWBWCIMpG_WDzmVdlz1MALpFWUK1MSIO5ABvdNNc8FFQ/s320/CostOfModernityThanos.png" width="320" /></a></div>
As Aristotle pointed out in his <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html">Nicomachean Ethics</a>, Socrates was wrong in thinking that ignorance makes one wicked, or that knowledge makes one virtuous - knowing is important but it's not enough, you also have to be in the habit of doing what you know to be right and true. Knowing 'the answers' doesn't make a person virtuous, any more than being ignorant of the right answer could make one depraved and evil. Believing isn't guided primarily by facts, but by what we are in the habit of acting upon, and anyone who's attempted to 'fact check' the beliefs of someone on the other side of the political aisle, has very likely seen that firsthand (and perhaps ignored it in themselves).
<br /><br />
Those who're able to meaningfully recognize that the knowledge they've habitually acted upon as a 'justified belief', is wrong, are able to do so because they are already in the habit of cross-checking the facts they now know, with what is inarguably real and true, in order to see where their knowledge, understanding, and behavior, may need to be altered in light of that new information. They do so because they at least implicitly understand that <i>failing</i> to do so, would lead them or their people into living within an illusion of <i>un</i>justifiable beliefs, falsehoods, and chaos, which would be at odds with what <i>is</i> real and true, and so of value to their lives.
<br /><br />
In an irony that Plato would surely enjoy, modern 'philosophers' who use the term and branch of 'Epistemology' that was devised to deny and <i>justify (!)</i> our inability to know what is real and true, do so while knowing that their system has produced those ideologies of '<i>justified belief</i>' that've darkened the modern world with illusions that most people are unwilling to acknowledge amidst their lives today. And of course they do so, confident that any 'fact checking' will reference only those facts that support the opinions that they've certified as being acceptable, and that by making themselves captive to those same beliefs, and safe in the knowledge that those they've taught to accept those facts and opinions in the educational systems that they dominate, will applaud them as being knowledgeable and correct.
<br /><br />
What that means for you and me, is that if you'd like to be justifiably confident that your beliefs will help you to live a life worth living, then you first need to take the modernists at their word and ignore their <i>literally </i>ignorant advice, and look instead to the premoderns who actually cared about establishing what is real and true (Metaphysics), and about demonstrating how to soundly argue the merits of any claims about that (Logic), and understood that it was important to identify what if anything should be done in light of that (Ethics). Philosophers before the modern era did so, because unlike the modernist, they thought that wisdom was important, and valuable, in the pursuit of a life worth living.
<br /><br />
<b>Caring about what is true is the path to liberty and the pursuit of happiness</b><br />
But getting back to answering our opening question, for a person to change what they believe and behave by, they first need to understand and believe that when we mistakenly believe something that is actually false, to be true, it is a consequential problem that truly matters to their life and ability to live it well, and to be in the habit of correcting themselves because of that. Those who don't believe that, are in the habit of dealing with errors and falsehoods, only when they present problems that interfere with their immediate plans and actions, and once those problems are 'resolved' into being out of sight, they are also out of mind.
<br /><br />
Those who believe that gaps and errors in their understanding are consequential to their life and ability to live it well, are inclined by that towards developing those habits of mind across time that become 'second nature' to their character, which we recognize as the mark of a virtuous person - AKA: One who is up to the challenges of living a life worth living. For them, errors and falsehoods once discovered, can no longer be tolerated, no matter what comforting norms might have grown up around them, and it's those kinds of people who are able to come to see - no matter what popular opinion might say against them - that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>... issuing proscriptions of people to be killed for the 'greater good', is an intolerable wrong; </li>
<li>... that enslaving fellow human beings, is an intolerable wrong; </li>
<li>... that an action that would be unjust to do to some, is 'somehow' just when done to others because of irrelevancies of race, creed, etc., is an intolerable wrong, </li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
, and not coincidentally, it is that habit of mind of continually referencing back to what is timelessly true, that enables us to first see inconsistencies in what we had accepted as being solid knowledge, which indicates that it is incomplete or flat out false, which is what makes it possible to discover what is wrong and how to correct it. Those who develop that habit of mind and act in accordance with it, are most likely to live to see happiness within their reach, and - always aware of the role that chance plays in our lives - without also demanding that 'happiness' be guaranteed, before behaving in that way. That's the essence of the line from George Washington's favorite play, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/31592/pg31592-images.html" target="_blank">Addison's 'Cato'</a>, that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> "<i>Tis not in mortals to command success, But we’ll do more, Sempronius; we’ll deserve it.</i>"</span></em></blockquote>
, meaning that they understand that the ends <i>do not</i> justify the means, and understand instead that our means are intelligent reflections of the ends we aim at, more or less successfully, as our habits of mind guide us in ensuring that <i>both </i> means and ends, fit within what we know, understand, and act upon, because they are real, true, and right; AKA: Integrity.
<br /><br />
At the foundation of ethics, are those fundamental virtues that 'fact-check' our behavior and keep us in accordance with first principles of knowledge and behavior, and a child's education should raise them up in those habits of thought and action, in knowledge and story. These habits of mind are what have been known since classical times as the Cardinal Virtues:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>Prudence - 'the 'Mother of the Cardinal Virtues' - no one who's not prudent can be Just, or Courageous, or Temperate, as all depends upon perceiving and acting effectively upon what is true and good</li>
<li>Justice - the habit of consistently rendering to others what is their due, as the rightful response to an earlier absent or wrongful action</li>
<li>Courage - acting in the face of adversity to do what is right and just to do</li>
<li>Temperance - desiring and acting in accordance with a prudent and just understanding of what is real and true</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
These virtues are foundational to ethical thinking in all quarters of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West, these virtues depends upon our seeing and seeking out what is real and true, and responding reasonably in accordance with what <i>is</i> - the thing itself. And central to that ability to understand, make sound judgments, and act to and carry them out appropriately, is the product of metaphysics, logic, and ethics, in thought and action.
<br /><br />
These virtues are foundational to the West, which upholds (upheld?) the importance of acting deliberately by choice at the level of the individual, their family, extended friendships, and community, which became a vital component in bringing about what is the truest wealth of the West. The Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West is not wealthy because of its resources - or resources taken from others - but because virtue, morality, and trustworthiness, became an expected norm in its communities, which made them as much or more inclined towards celebrating goodness, than power, and from that common sense, wealth and prosperity naturally followed in abundance.
<br /><br />
The expectation of trust and accompanying trustworthiness, ushered in the circumstances which Adam Smith observed as <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2019/11/digging-in-devil-is-in-details-of.html">the 'natural liberty' of each person</a>, when they were, to the greatest extent possible, able to act as they saw fit without external interference. As Smith observed, those able to make their own decisions in regards to their affairs, on the basis of conditions & needs they had first-hand knowledge of, with little or no fear of being forcibly interfered with by either criminal or civic officials, that produced a market and pricing system that excelled at spreading the most reliable information of the value of products, supplies, and related concerns, throughout society, and it brought about an unheard of explosion of efficiency and prosperity not only for their immediate communities, but to society as a whole.
<br /><br />
It's important to note that what was involved in those first stirrings of a Free Market, which they'd produced, involved far more than what the modern field of 'economics' concerns itself with, and is best addressed under the wider scope of Political Economy, which is what two of the last worthwhile Frenchmen, <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/biddle-a-treatise-on-political-economy" target="_blank">Jean Baptiste Say</a>, and <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/bastiat-the-best-of-bastiat" target="_blank">Frederick Bastiat</a> operated within (with apologies to <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/person/alexis-de-tocqueville" target="_blank">deTocqueville</a>). Although Adam Smith essentially originated the field of Political Economy before them, both Say and Bastiat would make its principles even more clearly understood than Smith had (Thomas Jefferson explicitly recommended Say's clearer and far briefer study of 'Political Economy':
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...<a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0432">John Baptist Say has the merit of producing a very superior work on the subject of Political economy</a>. his arrangement is luminous, ideas clear, style perspicuous, and the whole subject brought within half the volume of Smith’s work. add to this considerable advances in correctness and extension of principles..."</span></em></blockquote>
, over that of Adam Smith's).
<br /><br />
All of which rests upon, and depends upon, a regard and respect for what is real and true, and without that understanding which Ethics insists upon, Western knowledge and understanding could not have reached as high as it did with Aristotle, and higher with Cicero, and higher still with the Christian era. Without that full foundation, the English Common Law could not have been developed, let alone what followed in our Founders' era with the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/calvin-coolidge-thomas-jefferson-james.html" target="_blank">Declaration of Independence</a>, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/09/happy-constitution-day-236th-birthday.html" target="_blank">The Constitution</a>, and the realization of their understanding of a Free Market (which is NOT what libertarians & establishment GOP present as being '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Economic%20Politics%20vs%20Political%20Economy" target="_blank">Free Trade</a>'), which are what have made the better aspects of our current world possible.
<br /><br />
All of which goes to say, that Epistemologically speaking, where Metaphysics tells us what <i>is</i>, and Logic demonstrates what is arguably true, Ethics extends those into telling us whether or not such and such a conclusion is justifiable, and what should or shouldn't be done about that, and no 'epistemology' worthy of the meaning given to that name, can legitimately be practiced without employing all three. More to the point, undermining either one is an attack upon all three, and upon your ability to act in accordance with what you know to be real and true. Further, eliminating the expectation of the possibility of truth, has the effect of concealing all lies as such - what significance can a lie have, to a people who have no particular regard for what is real and true? - the lie is neatly cloaked in the attire of 'whatever' and '<i>just my opinion, man</i>', and its corruption spreads with ease.
<br /><br />
<b>The Modern cost of Epistemology without Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics (Narrator: <i>Everything</i>)</b><br />
At the vague beginnings of modernity, those who saw themselves as 'modern' began moving away from that understanding, perhaps first and most notably with Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote such things as that it would be advisable for a Prince to send in a brutal authority to discipline and even kill troublemakers in a region, and then once having brought them under control, to then make a show of <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1232/pg1232-images.html#chap07" target="_blank">killing that authority</a> who'd been acting on the prince's orders
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...Under this pretence he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed..."</span></em></blockquote>
, to convince the people that he cared about 'justice' for them and so deserved their loyalty. Hobbes put forth a similar notion from a different perspective, that since no one could be trusted to be honest and true, to avoid living lives that were '<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3207/pg3207-images.html#link2H_4_0114" target="_blank">nasty, brutish, and short</a>', a prince must be given the power to say what will be accepted <i>as if</i> it were 'right', and to enforce that upon all.
<br /><br />
Both of them imagined that such plans somehow <i>could be</i> effective, and therefore <i>would be</i> justified (if you apply Aristotle's 1st rule to the logic preceding the 'therefore', you'll find it to be lacking), and Hobbes's <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3207/pg3207-images.html">Leviathan</a> was subject to the same contradictions and falsehoods for 'the greater good', as Machiavelli's, so that neither forerunner of 'real politik' could establish a 'justified belief', and so neither could ever truly be either desirable, admirable, <i>or</i> effective. A reasonable understanding of ethics, which enables us to see into the wider context beyond the present moment, would show that no such actions could be justifiable, nor since they ignore the likelihood of unforeseen consequences of committing wrongs, could they be effective - by definition such actions taken in contradiction to what is real and true - and no such shortsighted effort could ever be 'practical' in the end, and could not be because they are wrong in their beginnings.
<br /><br />
What the term Epistemology was coined to mean, was being practiced in premodern philosophy long before its modern name was coined. To consider something philosophically, began with what Metaphysics could tell you <i>is</i>, which Logic examined and showed how arguably it could be justified, which led into an ethical understanding which disclosed what should or shouldn't be done about that. Doing so was and is inseparable from practicing the virtues of Prudence (a sound judgement about what is true), Justice (seeing that wrongs are appropriately righted), Courage (prudently applying justice even in adversity), and Temperance (doing what is right, in right measure, neither excessively or neglectfully). Practicing epistemology in a manner that lives up to the meaning assigned to it - distinguishing between justified beliefs, and opinion - is vital to determining whether or not a conclusion is not only the 'right answer', but is ethically justifiable to believe, stand by, and act upon - it doesn't make you infallible or omniscient, but it does help you to behave in a manner that is reasonably in accordance with what is real and true.
<br /><br />
Epistemology, according to what its modernist granddaddy, <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/">Immanuel Kant</a>, taught, was and remains thoroughly opposed to that premodern meaning which epistemology was coined to give modernism cover from. His, and every modernist system since his radical '<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#KanCopRev" target="_blank">Copernican Revolution</a>', which he conceived of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/" target="_blank">in reaction to David Hume</a>, he fashioned a gimmick (the details of that I'll leave for latter posts) in his '<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm#chap02">Critique of Pure Reason</a>', which responds to Hume's skepticism, by accepting his conclusions, and uses them as a pretext for devising a way 'around them',
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, <b>abolish knowledge, to make room for belief</b>. The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the presumption that it is possible to advance in metaphysics without previous criticism, is the true source of the unbelief (always dogmatic) which militates against morality..."</span></em></blockquote>
, which, as he's attempting to use reason to 'fact check' reason, by discarding metaphysics, in order to 'improve' reason (in all his concocted varieties of it), is just about <i>the </i>most dogmatic thing ever stated (at least to that date). At any rate, Kant's convoluted cogitations are what birthed the modernist's '<i>4th branch of philosophy</i>', which rests upon the assertion that what is actually real and true <i>cannot</i> be known, and in our ignorance of what is real and true and how to respond to that, we must instead treat all 'facts' as isolated events which serve only to indicate which of Kant's 'Categorical Imperative's we are to treat as being more relevant to us than reality.
<br /><br />
What is a 'Categorical Imperative'? They are statements which Kant and other 'experts' have rationalized - necessarily independent of 'real reality' - as being 'truths' that it is your <i>duty</i> to
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...<i>act in accordance with a maxim of ends that it can be a universal law for everyone to have</i>"</span></em></blockquote>
, IOW you are to act as if the ends <i>do</i> justify the means, and which we are expected to abide by in lieu of our inability to observe, judge, and respond to reality (or so he says), and these predigested judgements - made without reference to what is real and true in your context, but which the moderns think <i>should</i> be accepted as if they were 'real and true' - are what you (actually 'they', in the collective sense) are to accept as being your duty to abide by (without, of course, any reference to what <i>is</i> real and true), and so you are to act, not on your own judgement, but by what authorities have told you that you should - quite literally '<i>like a good German</i>' - <i>no matter what</i>.
<br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxHF07WecUIpjChQ2XlN1rZlZqO63b1TFzEBHbJacAkn3lZXruSGTmoxnaZg2EEfuTjqYuFESb8JRHhdhBKUYauxz3CvK_q8WaCaoV9IGOP4CSAD-L7_WF-eiL52tpo1qTzySgdzW01JCqDY1PvFsuXwSxjIaJZWvue-RbgxBbCwFVxSXK22rkQQ/s772/Nietzsche_KantCripple.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="361" data-original-width="772" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxHF07WecUIpjChQ2XlN1rZlZqO63b1TFzEBHbJacAkn3lZXruSGTmoxnaZg2EEfuTjqYuFESb8JRHhdhBKUYauxz3CvK_q8WaCaoV9IGOP4CSAD-L7_WF-eiL52tpo1qTzySgdzW01JCqDY1PvFsuXwSxjIaJZWvue-RbgxBbCwFVxSXK22rkQQ/s320/Nietzsche_KantCripple.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">"...<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm#THINGS_THE_GERMANS_LACK" target="_blank">that most deformed cripple of ideas that has ever existed—the great Kant</a>..."</span></td></tr></tbody></table>
If that didn't clear things up for you, consider this scenario which Kant actually gave as an example of his ideal that “The Categorical Imperative commands us not to lie”, and you should keep in mind that "<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#TelDeo">Kant subsequently says that a categorical imperative</a>:<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“<b><i>declares an action to be objectively necessary of itself without reference to any purpose—that is, even without any further end</i></b>"</span></em></blockquote>
, and by that he means that you must obey it no matter what your own judgment might tell you, meaning that you shouldn't follow it for any benefit it might bring, but in fact you must abide by it even if it would cause you or others real harm, up to and including your and their deaths.
<br /><br />
If it's not yet entirely clear how vastly different the modernist's approach is from the premodern one, a scenario that should make matters clearer, is one that Kant gave as an example of his ideal, which is in radical opposition to the premodern view (and I'll bet yours too). So let's take a look at the scenario itself, and then at how differently it might be approached from the premodern, and then the modernist, points of view:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>Imagine a scenario of whether or not your daughter is at home, and what you should do about that when a murderer comes to your door armed with a knife to kill her with, and demands that you tell him whether or not she is at home.</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
In the premodern view would consist of something like the following, informed by:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><b>Metaphysics</b> (dealing with what is real and true) would inform you of the truth about whether or not your daughter is in your house, that the person with the knife is a threat, it would also implicitly inform you of who you are as her parent and what your role and responsibility towards her is, what your home and its purpose is, and every other relevant bit of knowledge and understanding. <br />
<b>Logic</b> would tell you that the threat of force invalidates any demand made to you, as well as what other options are available to you, and making an argument that she isn't home, and that he should leave.<br />
<b>Ethics</b> would unify the knowledge of metaphysics and logic with virtue, morality, law, and cultural customs, not to mention common sense, and inform you that you're fully justified in <i>not</i> providing a knife-wielding would-be murderer with <i>any</i> facts or anything else in your possession, and that any means of eliminating that threat, from deception to the use of lethal force, is also fully justified.
<br /><br />
And so, as Socrates pointed out 2,500 years ago, anyone threatening violence or is in any other way out of their head, can have no claim whatsoever to any truth, or anything else you might possess, and it would be unjust to give it to them even if it's their own property. Meaning that, especially as their stated intent is to harm your daughter, you are not only justified in refusing their request, it is your responsibility to resist it by any means possible, up to and including blowing the would-be murderer's head clean off if they attempted to force their way in.</span></blockquote>
In the modernist view:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><b>Epistemology</b>, as the system was formulated by Kant, tells you that you do not in fact have any knowledge of anything that is real and true, the only thing you can know is your duty to follow the rule of the Categorical Imperative, and 'therefore' (a term reduced to be logic in name only) your duty is to tell the armed murderer at the door that your daughter is at home, even though the harm he intends to cause her would be considered 'unethical'.
</span></blockquote>
Yes, Kant actually says that because the 'Categorical Imperative' is to always 'tell the truth' (about the reality that you can never really have knowledge of), and that it's not just that you <i>should </i>tell the murderer at the door that your daughter is home (which to Kant's mind already involves <i>way </i>too much thought and judgement on your part), it is your <i>duty </i>to tell the murderer at the door who is there to kill your daughter, that your daughter is home, no matter what obligations, responsibilities, and standards, that telling such a 'truth' would truly betray.
<br /><br />
This should not be surprising, as modernism and all its children in highbrow pretenses, Marxism, pragmatism, post-modernism, wokeness, etc., all tell you that you cannot know what is real and true, and so 'logically' (by ignoring the fundamental rules of logic) you should (again, an ethical term) ignore the meaning of any and all terms and premises in favor of abiding by the Kantian Categorical Imperative to 'tell the truth' - if you cannot know 'the thing itself', then obviously your knowledge is not, should not, and cannot, be integrated or comprehensible, and so your only duty is to obey the rules of experts, and any judgment that'd violate those rules is wrong.
<br /><br />
Remember, modern philosophy isn't about helping you to become wise, it's about what & who you should obey.
<br /><br />
However many modernist experts have come and gone, and whichever ideological label, from Idealism, to Dialectical Materialism, to Pragmatism, and post-modernism they've operated under, and whichever political death-cult of socialism, communism, Marxism, Maoism, Pro-Regressivism, etc. that've brought in and out of favor, that fundamental 'truth' has remained a constant command - you kant know what's true, don't think for yourself, obey the experts.
<br /><br />
You might recall from <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/07/disorienting-america-modern-thinking.html">an earlier post</a> on Fichte's influence in our school systems, that (Fichte was the first to lay out exactly what the meaning and consequences of this new '4th branch of philosophy' actually meant), advised upon reforming education in his '<a href="https://archive.org/details/addressestothege00fichuoft/page/20/mode/2up">Addresses to the German people</a>', in order to eliminate the 'problem' of independent thought, and so make students more perfectly obedient to authorities (a message heard and transmitted into America by the likes of Horace Mann). If you ever wondered where the death camps of the fascists and communists came from, there's your answer - those are the ideas which those horrors originated from (and yes, they persist in the design of your current school systems), as does the modernist's reasons for using 'epistemology' to separate metaphysics, logic, and ethics, from your conscious consideration, comprehension, and judgement.
<br /><br />
Whatever its claims, Modernist philosophy didn't fix the errors and weaknesses of premodern philosophy, it replaced their honest gaps and errors with deliberate falsehoods and fantasies. Modern Epistemology and the 'philosophy' it supports, makes a mockery of Philosophy - the love of and pursuit of Wisdom cannot be engaged in after first having denied everything in its foundations and goals that makes such a pursuit possible.
<br /><br />
<b>Beliefs are justified by what is real and true</b><br />
What is real and true <i>matters</i>, and distinguishing between what is properly a 'justified belief', and 'opinion', can only be understood by those who care about and respect what is metaphysically true, logically arguable, and ethically understood. Those who deny what is real and true, can only follow rules and flow charts prepared and approved of by one expert or another, to achieve ideological ends which they expect you to have exchanged your ability to reason for (oh hi there 'Critical Thinking'), in order to obey what the experts tell you.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW8kbdtTdzMw0GkzrSsj8fkzD7O_1mVQSLQ37nzWtlyUpltLDtzn-awt2D5FQWocrbqCboF-6025XeRgVPlPnSX8YCk98u1pEaUY9nvdFo4JIPxkmx-d_-cypRJcEb-X52vXSNgsg5hiOnRNMkuTM0ALVZwM1YfMQ1NrW-cZFWb302PWS-etyZlA/s1002/Aristotle_SelfEvident.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="472" data-original-width="1002" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW8kbdtTdzMw0GkzrSsj8fkzD7O_1mVQSLQ37nzWtlyUpltLDtzn-awt2D5FQWocrbqCboF-6025XeRgVPlPnSX8YCk98u1pEaUY9nvdFo4JIPxkmx-d_-cypRJcEb-X52vXSNgsg5hiOnRNMkuTM0ALVZwM1YfMQ1NrW-cZFWb302PWS-etyZlA/s320/Aristotle_SelfEvident.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
If the meaning ascribed to epistemology in the 1880s is to be taken seriously - as opposed to how the modernist's '<i>4th branch of philosophy</i>' actually presumes and operates - you could not even begin to identify a 'theory of knowledge', without first understanding the metaphysical importance of identifying what is real and true, and the importance of responding to that knowledge ethically, and no belief 'justified' without that understanding can have any real and true value. An understanding of and respect for Justice, is required for determining the proper response to popular ideals, and pursuing what correctives might be warranted, without excess or inappropriate rancor, and you could not justly stand for a justified belief without the courage to say that you've discovered what is popularly supported, is in fact false. The ignorance of or denial of that, is what lays behind the moderns' denial of our ability to perceive reality as it is, and our inability to say what is real and true (what is a woman?), and any 'justified belief' that's justified without that, can only serve to subvert what truly is so.
<br /><br />
Outside of the vain pursuits of power, real power begins with a respect for truth, and having the humility to not only recognize the possibility of your being wrong, but the desire to discover that error, to treat people with respect, civility, kindness, and trust, comes naturally only to those who have a love of Truth. In that same soil is sure to be found a sound metaphysics, with a respect for logical reasoning, and an ethics which reflects and insists upon both, in liberty with their fellows in society, under heaven above.
<br /><br />
One question worth asking after all of this, is that if philosophy and an epistemology of metaphysics, logic, and ethics is so important, and if the great majority of people have little or no interest in its pursuit, how is such a society to come about, let alone endure? A quick look at history will show us that it is not necessary that everyone be an academic - just as recent history will show how disastrous such an effort is - but a people can still develop a meaningful habit of epistemology in everyday practice, through an education that fundamentally values and transmits "<i>the best that has been thought and said</i>" through its culture's stories, arts, letters, and religion.
<br /><br />
For a glimpse at how that once was done, and what had to be trivialized in order to dispense with it, we'll look at Grammar's role in implementing or abandoning an epistemology of metaphysics, logic, and ethics, next.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-61376867704892236342023-10-31T18:50:00.002-05:002023-10-31T18:50:53.309-05:00The Ethics of Epistemology - Escaping the Inigo Montoya Trap - You keep using that word 4We've looked at the misleading <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html">origins of the term 'Epistemology'</a> in the mid 1800s, and at how the term purports to carry on the pursuit of 'meaning' that the premoderns were concerned with, even as the modernist's new '4th branch of philosophy' rejects the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemologys-meaning-is-meaningless.html">metaphysics</a> and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/logic-observing-and-deactivating.html">logic</a> that any claim to meaning, is necessarily meaningless without. While modernity had been smoldering with skepticism & cynicism since at least the time of Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes, it didn't burst out into flame until it was ignited by David Hume's declaration that we could not know the causes of anything or anything else beyond an empirical fact and therefore the best (!) thing to do regarding any ethical & moral advice based upon that <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9662/pg9662-images.html#section12" target="_blank">illusive 'knowledge', would be to:</a>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion'</span></em></blockquote>
Claiming that Hume woke him up from his '<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/" target="_blank">dogmatic slumbers</a>', Immanuel Kant decided to oppose Hume by going even further with his systematic assertion that we can't ever really know the reality of the 'thing itself', and deeming earlier 'believable truths' to be outdated and 'uncritical', he led the moderns in systematically revising philosophy's role away from pursuing wisdom, and into providing convoluted sets of high-minded rules and rationalized 'truths' that they'd determined 'would be best' for society to treat <i>as if</i> they were 'realistic' and 'true'. And <i>that </i> system of German Idealism, is what the modernist's new '4th branch of philosophy' sprang from, and is what the word 'epistemology' was coined to obscure behind a facade of 'Greekness'.
<br /><br />
For those who'd rather engage with ideas that actually help them to better understand themselves, the world, and how to live a life worth living within it, they'd do best to avoid the presumptions and practices of modern 'epistemology', and instead rediscover how premodern philosophy put what that word claims to mean - a theory of knowledge that <i>distinguishes justified belief from opinion</i>' - into action. The premoderns accomplished that through the only possible means of doing so, by establishing what is real and true, demonstrating how to soundly argue to affirm or refute claims about that, and by identifying what if anything should be done regarding that, which they did through the unified use of Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics.
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center; vertical-align: text-top;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKSiY48sjxYUx8WzUjLl9GpN_m54DbW7OF-9s48CE3UiSAZ0L5rLy7iBQX2SE0-eXvYitkveEhGWlS0yghFOegmlX9A8iJCtow4ahCfVRNq5t62FDBVLbtmzbQTyp_jkpPosKUSLk6fRBaJ1MMntO6btNxRSIomtLFKkW8yDutHqH4hIh6DvM3uw/s1573/KnowledgeWithoutWisdomIsMonstrous.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1345" data-original-width="1573" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKSiY48sjxYUx8WzUjLl9GpN_m54DbW7OF-9s48CE3UiSAZ0L5rLy7iBQX2SE0-eXvYitkveEhGWlS0yghFOegmlX9A8iJCtow4ahCfVRNq5t62FDBVLbtmzbQTyp_jkpPosKUSLk6fRBaJ1MMntO6btNxRSIomtLFKkW8yDutHqH4hIh6DvM3uw/s320/KnowledgeWithoutWisdomIsMonstrous.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Knowledge without Wisdom is Monstrous</span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br /><br />
In coming posts we'll look at the details of how the modernists did what they've done and the subsequent ill effects that's had on the lives we now lead, but first, to avoid falling into the Inigo Montoya trap which the moderns stumbled upon with 'epistemology' ("<i>You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means</i>"), we need to look at the meaning of the word Ethics, which is generally defined as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"<b>Ethics</b>: Moral principles that govern a person's behavior and conduct"</span></em></blockquote>
, and perhaps the 1st thing to point out is that Ethics is more than merely rules of 'behavior and conduct', Ethics was traditionally the 3rd branch of philosophy, and contained the subjects of Politics, Law, Economics, and more, which matters a great deal to how philosophy '<i>distinguishes justified belief from opinion</i>', and despite modern epistemology which concerns itself with that in name only, an ethical concern <i>must</i> be involved in any effort to understand what is real and true and how to respond to that, lest you reduce your own mind to that of an artificial intelligence like ChatGPT.
<br /><br />
How do I mean that? Like this: it is not possible to meaningfully pursue the purported meaning of epistemology, without ethics - how would you <i><b>justify</b></i> - 'justify' being a term of ethics - belief, while having no belief in, interest in, or concern for, what is right and true? What can 'justified' possibly mean without a regard for what is real and true, and what, if anything, should - 'should' is also an ethical term - you do about that? <i>Should</i> you say anything if you notice an error in how something's been justified? What if that'd be inconvenient for you? Does it matter if you don't? Given its treatment of such stated concerns, it's not so surprising that modern philosophy has spawned a succession of evermore coldly antagonistic and brutal ideologies (utilitarianism, materialism, socialism, communism, pragmatism... etc.,), whose ideals are in constant competition to 'manage society', while agreeing only upon the belief that what is real and true, doesn't matter and can't be known by anyone anyway.
<br /><br />
The truth is that it is <i>not </i>possible to be concerned with what we are told 'epistemology' means, without incorporating an Ethics that's more worthy of its name, than the '4th branch of philosophy' is of its name - the desire for knowledge without ethics, is a lust for power unburdened by wisdom. Or, to fit it to the season, knowledge without wisdom is monstrous.<br /><br />
<b>Taking a different tact with the 3rd Branch of Philosophy - differences of degree, not kind</b><br />
How we approach Ethics, necessarily has to differ from how we approached metaphysics and logic in the previous two posts (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemologys-meaning-is-meaningless.html">here</a>, and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/logic-observing-and-deactivating.html">here</a>), and you can see why in the differences between the first two of the three philosophical questions, in relation to the third - they are again:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>'What is this?', (metaphysics), </li>
<li>'How do I know that? (Logic)',</li>
<li>'What, if anything, should I do about that? (Ethics)' </li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
, in that the first two are concerned with what <i>is</i>, while the third is concerned with what should be done because of what we understand those to be. The principles of Metaphysics and Logic rest upon what Aristotle identified as being the first rule of thought, that a thing cannot both be and <i>not</i> be, at the same time and in the same manner and context, and as Logic is entirely derived from that and exists to root out any such contradictions in our thinking, both fields have remained essentially unchanged from Aristotle's day on down to ours, and rightly so, because they are concerned with the timeless First Principles of what <i>is</i>. But as Ethics is concerned with how to respond in respect to what <i>knowledge</i> we have of what is real and true, and as the scope and depth of our knowledge and understanding has expanded and deepened, what is understood to be ethical in relation to that knowledge, has necessarily changed as well.
<br /><br />
Put another way, imagine a scene viewed through a telescopic lens, where you see the ground of a yard with a house upon it and a nearby tree being the tallest figure within the scene - then as you zoom out, while the ground remains at ground level, the single house is seen to be one of many houses in a neighborhood, and the tree which had been the highest point visible has become dwarfed by the mountain which had been obscured behind it when zoomed in. Similarly, while the ground of metaphysics and logic remain solid and unchanged, as their ethical high ground had been raised upon standards that are now understood to be considerably lower from our perspective in time, so that what they saw as the high ground back then, we can now see as standing lower, overshadowed in places, and in some cases is now even seen as being disreputable, if not downright evil.
<br /><br />
Because the fundamentals of what we accept as ethical behavior, are nearest to the timeless principles of metaphysics and logic which they are derived from, what we believe to be right and wrong in relation to those fundamentals (virtue, murder, theft, etc.,) change very little over time.
<br /><br />
But. Since the breadth and depth of knowledge available to us has grown far beyond what was understood when the philosophical pursuit of wisdom was begun by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, that enables a difference in ethical perspective that's often glaring to our eyes today, which was unavailable in their own time. So that where on the surface there seems to be a common baseline understanding of what is ethical - murder was wrong in their time, as it is in ours - what was thought to be an ethical application of that knowledge can differ as much as its scope - i.e. the understanding of what does and does not constitute murder, has changed <i>a great deal</i> between their day and ours.
<br /><br />
For instance, you've heard of the term 'decimated'? That comes from the Roman army's practice of discipling poor performance of the soldiers by lining up the troops and going down the line and killing every tenth soldier where they stood. In their eyes, that was not murder, that was simply maintaining discipline.
<br /><br />
<i>That's</i> how much degree can vary within kind. And the more closely you look into the past, the more such differences of degree are revealed.
<br /><br />
For instance, on the one hand, there were numerous positive developments over even the course of the 300 years from Socrates' time to Cicero's, where their knowledge and experience of the nature and purpose of the state (government and politics being a subset of Ethics), had further developed the idea of a Republic, into one that contained features of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy (which was hugely influential on our founder's thinking). Also, the character and performance of the Roman's idea of a Republic depended greatly upon the character of their people, and especially upon the importance of the family unit. That also compelled them to seek out and admit more input from the people, and so they also began to see that The Law needed to be much more than an arena for verbal gamesmanship and rules for the rulers to rule their society through - which was the norm in Socrates' time - and instead needed to be based upon a principled understanding of right and wrong, which needed to be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny, in order to be considered sound and acceptable as law (see especially <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Laws-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/019954011X" target="_blank">Cicero's 'Republic' and 'The Laws'</a>).
<br /><br />
On the other hand, while these were important and sound advances, advances that could be foreseen only dimly, if at all, from Socrates' position in time, from our perspective perched high atop of their shoulders, we're able to look back and down into their details, and see problems which they could not. For instance, as important as the family was believed to be by Romans to the Roman way of life, the near total power that the Roman Husband/Father, the Paterfamilias, had over the lives of his wife and children - he could put either to death if they had in some way (determined by him) dishonored the family - is something we're able to see today as being intolerably wrong and corrupting. And for all that they'd advanced in an understanding of the Law, and of Government, it was not uncommon for leading citizens and politicians, from Lucius Cornelius Sulla to Marc Antony and Octavian (later Augustus), to <a href="https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/proscription-in-ancient-rome/" target="_blank">issue proscriptions</a> for the good of the state, in which were listed the names of hundreds and even thousands of people who were to be hunted down and put to death, based solely upon the say so of whichever eminent figure had put their names onto that list - Cicero himself <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2019/02/the-brutal-beheading-of-cicero-last-defender-of-the-roman-republic" target="_blank">met his end in that way</a>.
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-top: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwp7G3kTC6TTD52EEF_fJ-1hC_tnmAw9EXIAfSxVoUW0MIhGov9wFDHiqP92aZwrI6znLREY6H8EkMlve7WDTKzhm_Y9NhLHNHeF7s3w2j5Q5aCixnL4hnbWhcMVDQYfok1qODewv3-i0B3BMOnjCiH3qllRIlXo1eJOGfnMaHH-qeF1zdldXV3g/s1600/DeathOfCicero_Perrier.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em; margin: 1em 1em 1em auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1084" data-original-width="1600" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwp7G3kTC6TTD52EEF_fJ-1hC_tnmAw9EXIAfSxVoUW0MIhGov9wFDHiqP92aZwrI6znLREY6H8EkMlve7WDTKzhm_Y9NhLHNHeF7s3w2j5Q5aCixnL4hnbWhcMVDQYfok1qODewv3-i0B3BMOnjCiH3qllRIlXo1eJOGfnMaHH-qeF1zdldXV3g/w200-h136/DeathOfCicero_Perrier.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Death of Cicero</span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br /><br />
Those differences in degree, follow from not just ignorance, but from the scope of knowledge and understanding that was available to them. In Aristotle's day at the opening of the philosophical pursuit of wisdom, the good of the polity, the state, marked the upper limit of known value and virtue, and that meant that the value of the individual was measured by their ability to serve the needs of society and the state. It was from that perspective that it was believed in Aristotle's time:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>that the state 'should' direct the education of its youth, </li>
<li>that some men were naturally slaves and so <i>should</i> serve their masters, </li>
<li>it was considered perfectly acceptable for unwanted or disabled children to be 'exposed', tossed out on a hillside, where, unless retrieved by a stranger for some desperately specialized slavery, they would die of exposure to the elements or become food for the wild things and vultures.</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
Our very different takes on those situations today come from our present vantage point (or at least one that was common to us in our Founders' time), which sees the purpose of the state to be to
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>uphold and defend the rights and property of the individual within society, </li>
<li>treating people as property is seen as an evil that is fundamentally opposed to the individual rights which it is the purpose of the state to safeguard, </li>
<li>leaving infants for dead is seen as murder and an intolerable evil (*cough* abortion *cough*). </li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
The vantage point from which we see those situations so differently today, comes from the considerably expanded scope of knowledge and understanding of what a person <i>is</i>, and what a society <i>should be</i>, which was largely unknown and unavailable to them in their time - but we cannot forget that our vantage point is built upon the foundations which they laid.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgZxEkSqI514G0UCvKNfSbYg3MqYj9CxksjCsAvGl5d43c2-_BkRZsTQrAOBEvh2Dr6Q7cirikOCTr4K-UPrEwkcTxjlQpPnxL1538aKksGkph5_4Sz1cRpDfLsiJEHiC38x1DbGJL6YnYZJ0SIXQM0wOG4zjFZLczTZVH7wze2pvk6mk1sVNeZQ/s885/FB_IMG_1689428386999.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="885" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgZxEkSqI514G0UCvKNfSbYg3MqYj9CxksjCsAvGl5d43c2-_BkRZsTQrAOBEvh2Dr6Q7cirikOCTr4K-UPrEwkcTxjlQpPnxL1538aKksGkph5_4Sz1cRpDfLsiJEHiC38x1DbGJL6YnYZJ0SIXQM0wOG4zjFZLczTZVH7wze2pvk6mk1sVNeZQ/s320/FB_IMG_1689428386999.jpg" /></a></div>
<b>Note:</b> Far from this being an argument for 'relativism', it's in fact the very opposite, in that it is because the range and scope of what we know today - not just in quantity, but the height and depth of understanding that is available today - that it's possible for us to see more clearly what is right and true and good and proper in relation to what is and can be known, than could even be imagined in the absence of that understanding. <b>Note Also</b>: Attempting to reverse that perspective, to judge them by the wider perspective of our day which they lacked, is being anachronistic - imposing something from one time, out of place upon another - and <i>should not</i> be engaged in, as doing so doesn't make you look superior to them, but only shows your judgment to be inferior to the knowledge that is available to you.
<br /><br />
And yet, the differences <i>are </i>worth noting, if only to highlight the importance of understanding what is available for you to know, and the enormity of what can be missed through ignorance.
<br /><br />
It's also important to point out that a vital part of what made our elevated perspective possible - even imaginable - to us today, are due to the major additions to knowledge and understanding that came from the Christian quarter of what was fast becoming the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West, and that raised the bar in ways that truly were <i>inconceivable</i> to Aristotle, and to Cicero as well.
<br /><br />
In addition to the four <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Four-Cardinal-Virtues-Intellectual-Responsible-ebook/dp/B01D4TAWYW" target="_blank">Cardinal Virtues</a> that had been known to them - Prudence, Justice, Courage, Temperance - were added three more virtues of Faith, Hope, Charity, which altered how the original four were understood to be applied. And so, in holding that violence was not only wrong, but that every person was made in the image of God, it was able to be understood that <i>every </i>person - child, mother, father - <i>should be</i> seen as equally human in the eyes of those whose own eyes had been opened to that. From that perspective it gradually became more and more difficult to not see the rich & powerful, as well as their humblest servants, as being equally human, and so equally deserving of the mutual respect and civility that should be extended to all as members of society.
<br /><br />
<b>The (very) Slow (then really fast) Progress of History</b><br />
We today hardly notice how revolutionarily new these innovations were, and many today even cynically treat them as being outdated - not as a result of any new knowledge of ours, but out of a new ignorance of our old knowledge. What we miss, at the very least, is that these new ideas were such that within a remarkably short time they'd defeated the 'gods' of mighty Rome, <i>within Rome!</i> True, they couldn't stop the rot which centuries of corruption had already brought Republican Rome to ruin, and raised the Roman Empire up in its place, but Rome was able to continue on for another two centuries in the western half of the empire, before collapsing from opposing forces within and without at around the 400s. OTOH, the eastern half of the empire in Byzantium - which had never stopped thinking of itself as Rome - endured and prospered for another thousand years, before it too was finally defeated, though more by external forces than internal failures (though those last weren't lacking).
<br /><br />
Centuries more passed by before Thomas Aquinas was able to bring that new Christian understanding, into Aristotle's philosophy, while the 'little people' continued to receive very little benefit or recognition of what we would understand today as 'individual rights', and even once violence, slavery, and immorality, had been brought into clearer disrepute, there were still few substantial barriers to stop the powerful from abusing the weak, as 'needed'. As the centuries passed, the ideas began to bubble up as with England's <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/historical-rights-of-englishmen.html#Charter" target="_blank">Charter of Liberties</a>, and still centuries after that before monarchs began to be bound to respect the lives & property of their subordinates (barons, earls, etc.,) began to be codified into British law with the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/historical-rights-of-englishmen.html#Magna" target="_blank">Magna Carta</a>, and still several centuries more before people would begin to see that those same rights should be extended to the non-aristocratic population as well, and only then was the understanding expressed by Sir Edward Coke, able to begin to be infused into British Common Law with the idea that '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2016/01/lockes-lab-for-diy-political-science.html" target="_blank">Every man's home is his castle</a></i>', and the corollary realization that everyone's 'Castle' depended upon everyone recognizing that every person was due the equal protections of society's laws which were to be defended by the state, against all enemies, foreign & domestic.
<br /><br />
With the solid foundation in fundamentals provided by the early Grecco/Roman half of the West, expanded and humanized by the Judeo/Christian half, and refined over the course of the developments of Europe and especially Britain over the course of two thousand years and more, their accumulated experience and discoveries and knowledge, eventually achieved such an elevated understanding as what began to be expressed with the idea of the English '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/historical-rights-of-englishmen.html#Bill" target="_blank">Bill of Rights</a>'.
<br /><br />The ethical development of the '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/historical-rights-of-englishmen.html">Rights of Englishmen</a>', was a tipping point, spanning as it did across Ethic's subsets of governance, law, economics, and societal norms, and became a new norm that America's Founding Fathers refused to relinquish it, even though England was clear across the ocean. They soon set about refining the idea further still, and then extended the theory of its applicability to mankind as a whole, with the understanding that not only did and should the choices of individuals have value and standing before the law, but that government <i>must</i> be barred from infringing upon those fundamental individual rights. With that understanding becoming widespread, a new soundness and prosperity of their entire society soon followed, and hard on the heels of that came the realization that it all depended upon the people having a moral and liberal education, because an uneducated people, as <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102">John Adams</a> put it:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'...would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net...'</span></em></blockquote>
, and so it was seen to be necessary that each person's choices and rights & property, would be respected and defended against forcible interference, through the principled Rule of Law, which even the State and its officers were to be held accountable to.
<br /><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoFTVrifNK4IQZIO6jdHwmHmKjECC54ggfuJybiOdljUmZvHDKBQDOkO4nSrCK-hphv44RxhSeIm8u4Ig8dOogmGhTrAw25LQpzij2YN0CcYbAPEkaL9N_HxrvmW3aSB43OYW9D55ECFqD-wYLt5ERxoEvZVxLoeesMdETY5cAV9gOS9bVSkVn5w/s736/JohnAdams_WhaleNet.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin_left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="736" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoFTVrifNK4IQZIO6jdHwmHmKjECC54ggfuJybiOdljUmZvHDKBQDOkO4nSrCK-hphv44RxhSeIm8u4Ig8dOogmGhTrAw25LQpzij2YN0CcYbAPEkaL9N_HxrvmW3aSB43OYW9D55ECFqD-wYLt5ERxoEvZVxLoeesMdETY5cAV9gOS9bVSkVn5w/s320/JohnAdams_WhaleNet.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: xx-small; text-align: center; valign: center;"><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102">John Adams</a>: <i>'... would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution<br /> as a Whale goes through a Net...'</i></td></tr></tbody></table>
America's <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/founding-documents.html">Declaration of Independence, its federal Constitution</a> (and those of its united States), and Bill of Rights, arguably expressed the most radical and revolutionary leap of political progress in human history, and though 'self evident' to them then, it took over two thousand years for that knowledge to be developed and understood, before it could become <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/early-american-documents.html">'self evident' to our Founders</a>. It is important for us to understand today, that though we share essentially the same understanding of metaphysics and logic and the same Cardinal Virtues of ethics understood in Aristotle's & Cicero's time which our Founders understood to be invaluable '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/calvin-coolidge-thomas-jefferson-james.html" target="_blank">common judgments of public right</a>' and are still of immeasurable value to us today, '<i>The Spirit of 1776</i>' was an ethical development that was utterly and completely beyond the ability of anyone to perceive in Aristotle's & Cicero's time.
<br /><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUqrdcHdI-8cWMOnoK9Wp2xKS3u1NsIMSOJY48oaIHFEoSktknZ4Bl1_5F8Lpb5eY8TTb0xbTUkWsTBp1nh-QesSiXP9NulhXhQrIGCkgTff431RHgJuf48lGHiyzGqGNFMErMMGPfH1l1QV1xbme5-Ps6MBAGZ92n3aWfOFhwqBYfaw4SkyYUg/s921/Woke_WhatsLeftAfterRemovingMetaphysicsLogicEthics%20and%20Knowledge.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="735" data-original-width="921" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUqrdcHdI-8cWMOnoK9Wp2xKS3u1NsIMSOJY48oaIHFEoSktknZ4Bl1_5F8Lpb5eY8TTb0xbTUkWsTBp1nh-QesSiXP9NulhXhQrIGCkgTff431RHgJuf48lGHiyzGqGNFMErMMGPfH1l1QV1xbme5-Ps6MBAGZ92n3aWfOFhwqBYfaw4SkyYUg/w320-h256/Woke_WhatsLeftAfterRemovingMetaphysicsLogicEthics%20and%20Knowledge.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/us/woke-news-columbia-university-sign-letter-defending-students-supporting-hamas" target="_blank">What beliefs that are justified without reality, looks like</a> </span></td></tr></tbody></table>
Ethics develops from our understanding of the knowledge available to us, which is just one reason why it is so unforgivable when systems of education fail to teach our youth the history which our standards of ethical behavior depend upon - how else do you think we came to have college campuses where students chant for death to Israel?! Students protesting for 'free speech' by supporting terrorists, is <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/us/woke-news-columbia-university-sign-letter-defending-students-supporting-hamas" target="_blank">what it looks like</a> when a person is given an education that has had metaphysics, logic, ethics, and the knowledge they make possible, removed from their understanding.
<br /><br />
Ethical understanding is developed from what we know, and that cannot be ignored in any attempt to identify a '<i>theory of knowledge for justified belief</i>', and it is <i>our</i> ethical responsibility today to carry that on, which means that you cannot blindly accept the judgments of any time - theirs or ours - without giving reasonable consideration to what is right and wrong, if only to ensure that you understand what you're doing and why, rather than timidly obeying a set of rules that then can have no meaning to you.
<br /><br />
Because we have abandoned our ethical responsibility in what we accept as a '<i>theory of knowledge for justified belief</i>' from modern 'epistemology', we now thoughtlessly accept almost any rule that experts tell us is 'justified', and it has taken less than a century of that for our own people to become largely unable to see what had been seen as self-evident in our Founders' era.
<br /><br />
We'll take a look at how the three branches of philosophy work together and are embedded in the ethical virtues that need to be recognized in order to defend against that, and the key epistemological method that was used to blind us to all of that, next.<br />
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-82286617381329633622023-10-30T08:57:00.001-05:002023-10-30T09:33:26.082-05:00Logic: Observing and deactivating the boobytraps of modernity - You keep using that word 3<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemologys-meaning-is-meaningless.html" target="_blank">The previous post</a> reviewed the highlights of Metaphysics and noted that everyone has a philosophy, even if they are unaware of it, and that the only choice open to us is whether yours will be a confused mishmash that'll be of greater benefit to those interested in using you for their own ends, or a sound one that serves what you think is best by respecting what is real and true. The latter option requires practicing what the term <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html" target="_blank">'Epistemology' was coined to mean</a> in the mid-1880s - '<i>distinguishes justified belief from opinion</i>' - rather than how that '4th branch of philosophy' (which denies that you are able to know what is real and true) is typically thought of and practiced today.
<br /><br />
In this post we'll look at that philosophical feature which mankind had been unaware of for most of human history (that we know of), which is that 3,000 year old manmade technology that quickly became the power-tool of the Western mind: Logic (see Aristotle's <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logic/">Organon</a>). For the fact is that while reasoning comes naturally to all men, doing so methodically, and logically, <i>does not</i>, and until men began paying conscious attention to the process of what they did when reasoning, the key tool for doing that more effectively, and for verifying reason's results, remained undiscovered.
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcnOQ3C6AyQcP_j5sfEO9OXVfdA6bo7ZnqxJ896GrztAtsJPgnnjhWFMR5abXuVx7fJwOX2Xbyw1YuWVHMMYT8UbmG_Y5aP_3_wDCNkzcfMwfK1utTpb_i8e9K8vNnLDnVZPr21hnvaICHxZ3unNEQou0L4YHMg2hGXzCGirvDSafBHFF4lD-lAQ/s679/FB_IMG_1697566790085.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="637" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcnOQ3C6AyQcP_j5sfEO9OXVfdA6bo7ZnqxJ896GrztAtsJPgnnjhWFMR5abXuVx7fJwOX2Xbyw1YuWVHMMYT8UbmG_Y5aP_3_wDCNkzcfMwfK1utTpb_i8e9K8vNnLDnVZPr21hnvaICHxZ3unNEQou0L4YHMg2hGXzCGirvDSafBHFF4lD-lAQ/s320/FB_IMG_1697566790085.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Guarding against Fallacies is important, <i><b><u>but not enough!</u></b></i></span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br /><br />
It would be especially hard for anyone interested in Epistemology to treat Logic as a separate and distinct system, as Logic cannot be 'done' without paying due attention to the metaphysics it is derived from, as identifying what <i>is</i>, what is <i>true</i>, what you know, and what follows from that, are the fundamental requirements that <i>must </i>be known before Logic can be used to test an argument's validity. Any exercise in 'logic' which ignores whether the terms or propositions it is built from reflect reality, is a waste of time and intellectual effort, as logically <b>it </b><i>cannot</i> be interested in Logic. Yes, the rules of Logic's most visible feature, the Syllogism, are used to validate your argument, but that's just a means to an end, the actual point of logic is to detect inconsistencies, errors, and contradictions in your thinking and in what it is you think you are thinking about, and that requires clearly identifying the nature of your terms, noting how one term actually relates to another, and whether or not your premises are in fact true, and support - or invalidate - your argument.
<br /><br />
That's why this primary prerequisite for Logic isn't just a formality, it's the whole point <a href="https://d1b14unh5d6w7g.cloudfront.net/1587318083.01.S011.JUMBOXXX.jpg?Expires=1698323700&Signature=SxROw1wArIODqLOD-QUVtFmiZjYjuqeS515W1EVMHHf67HmciK1hQzkmgqR8~PtRaUrE3RC5j1x18VMIzVrWk6dzkW37O685FMJhFhIczTlmH82okfmqtqlTFtHTUZlX3-hAyrAmM4WIz6eZ8yTlTE62QLfTbNxryGSPny84srY_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUO27P366FGALUMQ" target="_blank">of the process</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>Ensure that your terms are clear and unequivocal, and that your premises are true</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
, and there's no point applying any of the other rules of logic, if you haven't first ensured that your terms and premises are true, as what results <i>cannot</i> be logical.
<br /><br />
Disclaimer - I'm no expert on Logic, and I'm not intending to teach it here, but only to point out the too often neglected fundamentals, without which you can have no real ability to be logical. If you are interested in learning Logic properly and fully, I can suggest a comparatively brief, and very readable introduction to logical reasoning, in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083">Peter Kreeft's 'Socratic logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles</a> (the first few pages <a href="https://www.staugustine.net/tasks/render/file/?fileID=D01D931A-24E8-4311-9EAFA2909873CBB3">are excerpted here</a>). In that, Prof. Kreeft points out that the rules of logic are, perhaps surprisingly, rather simple, for instance, concerning the archetypal syllogism:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<i>'Socrates is a man,
<br />all men are mortal,
<br />therefore Socrates is a mortal man'</i>
</span></blockquote>
, he points out the immediate understanding which we should take from that argument:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>"What are we talking about? "Man"</li>
<li>"What are we saying about it?","That man <i>is</i> mortal"</li>
<li>"Why is it mortal?", "Because man is an animal, and all animals are mortal, therefore man is mortal."</li>
</ol></span></blockquote>
What may not be immediately obvious in that, is that the form of the syllogism enables us to either relate and order that knowledge into a hierarchy of what we know and how it relates to reality, or it exposes the gaps and breaks and errors in our understanding, both of which enhances and reflects our grasp of Identity, Knowledge, and Causality. How it does so is through the terms, propositions, premises, and the conclusion which they argue towards. What's implicit in the working parts of the syllogism, is that its structure reveals three different aspects of the reality being taken into consideration:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>Terms reveal essences (What a thing is)</li>
<li>Propositions reveal existence (whether it is)</li>
<li>Arguments reveal causes (why it is)</li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
Those terms, propositions, premises and arguments, are concerned with the metaphysics of what <i>is</i>, and what causally follows from that, is what Logic exposes, as well as expressing what should and should not follow from that, through Ethics. If you have eyes with which you permit yourself to see, you should be able to see that when Sophists' attack causality, they are indirectly attacking logic, identity, truth, and your ability to understand and respond accordingly to them, as we saw with the relativist's 'my truth' being an attack upon truth and reality as such. It is through the logical process, that we see how our knowledge is consciously validated from the grassroots of reality on up, and extended through to the highest of abstractions formed from them, into solid units of understanding.
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, in the modernist's treatment of logic, as with the supposedly 'mathematically rigorous' symbolic logic (Prof. Kreeft gives an excellent explanation of why that is of little value in reasoning), that fundamental rule is rarely even mentioned, and is more likely ignored or evaded, because modernism fundamentally ignores and evades identity, causality, and existence itself. Play your word games all you want, but don't pretend that dressing such games up in the operational rules of logic could make them any more logical, than dressing a man up in women's clothing would make him a woman.
<br /><br />
<b>Elementary my dear Watson</b><br />
The practice of attempting to 'do logic' by the technical rules while ignoring its overall purpose, often leads to one of the common excuses or *criticisms* of syllogisms, such as: "<i>That just deals with deductive logic!</i>', meaning that it's too simple, and also that deductive logic is somehow more obviously and perceptually *true*, and then that inductive or inferential logic deals with conjectures that we cannot ever be ultimately 'certain' of. Before we open ourselves up to the Inigo Montoya treatment, let's get clear on what the meaning of <a href="https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/deductive-reasoning/">the words we're using, are</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>Deductive reasoning progresses from general ideas to specific conclusions. </li>
<li>Inductive reasoning starts with specific observations and forms general conclusions about them.</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
Ok... so how different is Deductive logic, from Inductive logic? Well, seemingly very different, and yet not so different after all. You see, making inferences isn't as mysterious as modernists would like you to infer, and those who do so would like you to forget (or better yet, never realize) that all deductions, are themselves derived from inferences!
<br /><br />
Look again at the classic example of deductive logic:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<i>'Socrates is a man,
<br />all men are mortal,
<br />therefore Socrates is a mortal man'</i>
</span></blockquote>
The three Propositions that the syllogism is made up of, each of which has two terms, and form a premise about reality, with each building upon the previous one, are leading to the argument's conclusion that is and must be true - <i><b>if</b></i> it agrees with experience, and that <i>is</i> the key.
<br /><br />
To <i>be</i> logical, your basic logical units, the Terms used, and the propositions formed from them, must be clear, and unambiguous, meaning that there can be no doubt about what is being referred to (Identity). The 1st particular concrete term, is identified as belonging to the 2nd general abstract term, and all within the 2nd general term are related to the particular attribute of the 3rd term, forming the conclusion which clearly follows by demonstrating that there is a relationship between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd terms. That integrated meaning <i>causes </i>the conclusions, and not the happenstance of a premise's position in an argument, or the surface rules it abided by, and modernity is fundamentally opposed to that understanding (more on that in coming posts).
<br /><br />
One too common example that's given of inductive reasoning today, is this exceedingly poor example which was the very first result I received from a Bing search (from <a href="https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html">liveScience.com</a>),
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."</span></em></blockquote>
What this deliberately gives the impression of, is that induction is just a matter of happenstance and seemingly sensible conjecture of one thing that happens to follow another (Oh, Hello there Hume!), which is unreliable and easily invalidated by any unexpected 'black swan' event, such as the fourth coin coming out of the bag as a nickel - <i>Oops!</i> However the fact is that this is <i>not </i>a valid example of Inductive Reasoning, and is in fact only a hasty generalization (which is itself a logical fallacy - see #3 in '10 Commandments of Logic' pic above).
<br /><br />
We can easily come up with a better and more appropriate example of inductive logic practically off the cuff, by looking at how the experience of different particulars, leads to a conclusion that relates to every particular instance, by way of a generalized abstraction of 'mortality':
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"It's been observed that man requires food and drink in order to live and that he will die without them. In most climates, men require clothing and shelter to survive, and in too harsh conditions without them, even briefly, whether hot, cold, or excessively wet, will likely cause his death. Like other animals, man is subject to diseases which can cause his death, and man, as with other animals, becomes more frail and subject to disease by aging itself, which also eventually leads to his death. Man is also made vulnerable to death by any number of injuries and wounds that, whether sustained by accident or incident to his person, will cause his death. Seeing that there are numerous means for causing a man's death, and that death will eventually come to him even without obvious external cause, and that not only is there no evidence of any men ever having been impervious to fatality, all of the evidence gathered from every relevant direction, indicates that man cannot escape death, and so we infer that it is part of the identity of man that all men are mortal."</span></em></blockquote>
Unlike the exceedingly weak example of the three pennies 'proving' that all coins in the bag are pennies by sequential happenstance, this example looks at what becomes an integrated whole through a variety of ways in which man experiences mortality, and inescapably leads to the conclusion that because of the nature of what we know man to be, we are able to infer that part of his identity is that all men are mortal.
<br /><br />
The last words there, of "<i>... all men are mortal</i>", of course are what form the 2nd premise of the classic '<i>Socrates is...</i>' example of deductive logic, and what you should infer from that, is that all such abstract terms are arrived at through the same inductive manner (soundly or unsoundly), which begin in experience, and rising up by abstraction to become accepted concepts - and inescapably lead to the conclusion that the premises used in Deductive logic, are derived from Inductive reasoning. The terms of a deductive syllogism are the answers at the end result of a process of inductive reasoning that created them, and while it can and does save time, it shouldn't be forgotten that it can and should be used as a means of making more plain any oversights or errors that might've been missed in the more detailed process of inductive reasoning.
<br /><br />
To fully appreciate Logic and the benefits it reveals to us, we need to understand the nature of the reciprocal 'fact checking' role that is implicit in the complementary roles of deductive and inductive reasoning, which they'll perform for each other, if attended to diligently, in that - so long as you expect that to the best of your knowledge your premises & terms are true - if your deductions and inferences are technically valid, and yet the inescapable conclusion differs in some way from what experience actually shows, that's an indication that there are gaps or even errors in your assumptions and knowledge of the terms you're reasoning with.
<br /><br />
For instance, the following example which abides by only the surface rules of the syllogism:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<i>'Socrates is a Greek,
<br />All Greeks eat olives,
<br />Therefore, Socrates eats olives.'</i>
</span></blockquote>
, leads to a conclusion which does not agree with our experience which indicates that at least one of the premises are <i>not</i> fully sound and true, which should <i>cause</i> you to acknowledge that this argument inescapably 'proves' that something in 'what you know' is false.
<br /><br />
Discovering errors in your logical reasoning, by means of logical reasoning, is not a bug, <i>that's a feature</i>, and it means that there's more to learn in what you're thinking about, and it clearly shows you that your premises and possibly even your terms, need to be explored further, qualified, and possibly even entirely revised.
<br /><br />
To ensure that our 'logically inescapable' conclusions don't become traps for us, we need to do our best to ensure that every step in our logic, and our understanding of its premises, and that its terms are clear and unambiguous, all fully comport with what is real and true. The rules for arranging terms and premises in a syllogism <i>are</i> an important part of the process of logical reasoning, but they do <i>not</i> substitute for the entire process which they too depend upon. That requires that you incline towards a wider view of your knowledge, and ensure that it is more than an arrangement of 'facts', and that there are good reasons to believe that the soundness of your knowledge, and the terms and premises derived from it, lead to, rather than are constricted by, the technical rules of the syllogism itself. By adhering to the primary rule, before, during, and after, we are able to learn from what we know.
<br /><br />
Deductive Logic, and Inductive Logic, are two complementary and interdependent approaches to validating your reasoning, and you can bet that when people criticize logic as being 'too pat', or rationalistic, it's because they've allowed those terms to become divided from each other in their minds. It should come as no surprise that modernity was practically established upon pitting deductive and inductive reasoning against each other, they've a number of methods for confusing you into allowing them to do just that.
<br /><br />
This issue came to the forefront with Hume, and then exploded in maximum density with Kant's reaction to him, but it is enough for now to know (we'll get into further details in later posts) that when you see the terms 'analytic vs synthetic', or in their more technically detailed form of 'a priori' vs 'a posterori', in either case you'd be wise to treat them as flashing red warning signs being used to divert you into taking the offramp of their '4th branch of philosophy', which is designed to lead you astray from what is, and what can be understood to be, real and true.
<br /><br />
You should know that those lights are flashing red, whenever you see examples such as this:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'A Bachelor is an unmarried man' and 'Grass is green'</span></em></blockquote>
, and they're attempting to force you to exit onto modernity's epistemological offramp, through those 'analytic'/'synthetic', or 'a priori'/'a posterori' terms just mentioned, which they assert are only 'true' (scare quoted as this is the means of reducing Truth to small 't' truths') either by definition alone, or through empirical evidence.
<br /><br />
Before looking closer, how they typically define these terms are, that Analytic or:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"A priori claims are those you can know independent of experience" </span></em></blockquote>
, or is 'contained by it' (as 'unmarried' is 'contained' by 'bachelor') while on the other apparent hand, a Synthetic or:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"a posteriori claims are justified based on experience"</span></em></blockquote>
If something about those statements seems unsettling, congratulations, your internal B.S. detector is working well, and you can see the issue by asking 'What is this, How do I know it, What if anything should I do about that', yourself.
<br /><br />
We can and should say that, and without advancing a materialist position, it is true that there is <i>nothing</i> that we can know of this world, independent of experience. The word 'Bachelor' was not magicked into our minds from somewhere beyond time or space, we know that a bachelor refers to an unmarried man, and because through experience we know what a man is, and we know what marriage is, and that 'Bachelor' is the word we use to identify a man that is not married - it is self-evident that the word, its terms, and its premise, are all derived from experience.
<br /><br />
The same goes for their other favorite examples, that the sum of degrees in a triangle is always 180* is 'true in every universe', because we understand from experience the nature and properties of a triangle. Likewise with Number and numbering, as far from numbers being mysteriously ethereal concepts, they are what we arrived at after having abstracted the particulars being counted - apples, oranges, spears - away from the quantities being handled, we were able to give the names of 'one, two, three' to them, as a means of greatly simplifying the counting of them.
<br /><br />
Yes, numbers show up in the darndest of places, but that's because quantities of this and that is all there is... everywhere! No part of 27÷9=3 exists outside of or prior to experience, and in case you've forgotten, learning that the answer to what 27 divided by 9 is, is devilishly difficult to get to - ask any 1st grader to verify that for you. It's only after you've understood what a number is, and what particular numbers refer to, and after you've experienced working through and counting it out a few times, that it gets easier. Yes, numbers, math, can be applied anywhere in place and time, and would apply whether or not people existed... by whichever intelligent creature existed that was able to learn the concept from experience. Don't fall for the '<i>a priori/a posterori</i>' con, it is purely philosophical sleight of hand, and it is intended to take something from you - one of your most important handles on reality. Whatever example is waved in your face, don't buy into their conceptual Three Card Monty game - concepts are applicable in nearly every scenario we can imagine, but that does not mean that we came to know any of them through any means other than from experience.
<br /><br />
<b>Note: </b>In recent years there've been attempts to dodge this, by objecting that "<i>What makes something a priori is not the means by which it came to be first known, but the means by which it can be shown to be true or false</i>" (<a href="https://books.google.com/books/content?id=_cSjFknjbuwC&pg=PA143&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U0MpyvsktPinL-Z0XpJEFPiXVRRlA&w=1280" target="_blank">Baggini</a>), meaning that once it's been learned, we no longer need to refer to experience, to know what a triangle is, to which I give all the respect which is due that argument in my reply: <i>B.S.!</i> Someone who has somehow never seen or heard of a triangle, will not 'know' it by saying the word 'triangle', and until you ask them to imagine the shape made from three straight lines, laid end to end with the last connecting back to the first, they will then understand it, from having had that experience of imagining it, or you can show them a triangle and after having experienced seeing it, they'll recognize it... from that experience.
<br /><br />
There are <i>many</i> technical differences between what I've lumped together here as being roughly equivalent between '<i>analytic vs synthetic</i>', '<i>a priori' vs 'a posterori</i>', but they are differences of degree, not kind, and the ugly fact is that people are working very hard to discredit your ability to apprehend reality, and they will try to confuse the issue of what is, and is not real, but their efforts are no more worthy of trust than those of the Three Card Monty dealer - don't fall for it. After cutting through all of the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/" target="_blank">dense verbiage</a>, what they're doing is attacking both Identity and Causality, and they're doing so in order to capture your mind - decline to accept their 'hypotheticals' - they're trying to bounce you right on out of the real world. I'd advise against accepting their invitation.
<br /><br />
As we've already seen with the premise that 'man is mortal', when we examine our experiences, we don't simply infer a conclusion from a sequence of observations, as the lame example of taking coins from a bag asserted, rather, as we saw with 'man is mortal', we observe that in examining our experiences, when we find that the totality of our observations show the same results, which are also affirmed through all other conceivable variations, we are able to infer with certainty that within those contexts that conclusion is able to be understood to be true.
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 1px; width: 25%;">NOTE: Certainty does not require nor imply inerrant infallibility, and any attempt at claiming that, is also an attack, deliberate or not, upon reality, identity, truth, and everything in your world which depends upon them.</div>
We are able to infer that there is a basis for being certain of our conclusion, within appropriate contexts, and one reason why we should not separate deductive from inferential reasoning, is that they are interdependent and self-correcting, when previously unconsidered evidence and contexts arise.
<br /><br />
It's important to point out that the famous 'black swan' event, is <i>not</i> a valid case of inference or exception, relying as it does on nothing more than the feeble '<i>this coin was a nickel, and the next coin was a nickel, so all coins are nickels</i>' mockery of inference, in that as we know that chemical processes which produce the coloring of a swans feathers, are fully capable of producing other colors, and there's no reason to suspect that a mutation would be unable to produce a single black swan or even a new breed of them. The fact that swans are most likely to be white, is valid as a general rule of thumb, but the existence of one or more black swans does nothing to invalidate inferential reasoning.
<br /><br />
With that being said, we can move onto the other evasion of 'synthetic' or 'a posteriori' examples, which are typically positioned through common examples of:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Grass is green" and "Man is mortal" and "There are no black swans"</span></em></blockquote>
, and one of the ways that students are intellectually assaulted with these terms, is by means of hypotheticals - <b>NEVER</b> allow someone to propose violating a fundamental principle such as identity or causality, in order to engage you in a hypothetical that begins with your agreeing to imagine something that conflicts with what you know to be real and true; their purpose is <i>not </i>to expand your thinking, but to puncture it, to sow doubts into your existing thoughts, and to disable your ability to think clearly from then on.
<br /><br />
As we've seen, the premises that 'man is mortal' or 'bachelor is an unmarried man', are inferred from experience in just the same manner as 'grass is green' (in most varieties, not all), and the sum of degrees within a triangle is always 180*. It is only from experience that we are able to conceive of and conclude with certainty that all triangles in a flat plane (important point) sum up to 180*, because we can quickly see that there are no possible variations within a flat plane, that could result in more or less that 180* - it isn't possible. And while laying a triangular shape upon a convex or concave surface will produce more or less that 180*, that's no longer dealing with triangles in the context of a flat plane. And we don't validate our concepts through hypotheticals such as 'imagine grass that's red, or striped', because experience shows that hypotheticals that do not exist in reality, are not valid 'points of view' for considering reality from.
<br /><br />
That man is mortal, is a result of inference. That all triangles contain 180* is the result of inference. That Red is a color, is a result of inference (and the fact that there are edge colors where its difficult to say are blue or green, does not invalidate either, and the fact that noticing there are fuzzy edges affirms, rather than calls into question, that solid ground can be identified). That a Bachelor <i>is</i> an unmarried man is no less an inference because it is defined to express the difference between men, and married men. Even 2+2=4 is an inference. The fact that some terms and premises take more or fewer instances to reliably infer a conclusion, has no effect on the validity of inference. BTW, the same applies in ethical conclusions, when an argument is made that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'All people need food and shelter to survive, <br />
some people lack food and shelter, <br />
therefore government should ensure they are fed'<br /></span></em></blockquote>
, they are counting upon your accepting their premises - and the ones they are ignoring - without question, and you can bet that they will fight against your checking their premises about 'people', 'need', 'good', and 'government'. Don't allow it. <i>Ever</i>.
<br /><br />
The supposed 'ideal' of inerrant and infallible certainty, which they hold up as an ideal, is a confession of their failure to understand and hostility to, mankind and man's means of understanding.
<br /><br />
<b>Are you Certain?</b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1sxAUbo2wcwLwbtzD4e33T5EFkgnkDUUIET-2rgb36dSiRtsLVR0mBxbI_Stud-kNqfkiWhg31C3mX8RuUEKF9hlkAH3uz78HiRTxzUeRQwhJLs5uL-PVUrK_ZcWi5AmQrpCcb36E8-qtK3gWj__5Rf-O_DtBaVx2xFc-pBPMbDSvzrQBbrFJrw/s1153/TSElliot_SystemsSoPerfect.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="1153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1sxAUbo2wcwLwbtzD4e33T5EFkgnkDUUIET-2rgb36dSiRtsLVR0mBxbI_Stud-kNqfkiWhg31C3mX8RuUEKF9hlkAH3uz78HiRTxzUeRQwhJLs5uL-PVUrK_ZcWi5AmQrpCcb36E8-qtK3gWj__5Rf-O_DtBaVx2xFc-pBPMbDSvzrQBbrFJrw/s320/TSElliot_SystemsSoPerfect.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Is logical reasoning infallible? Of course not, and neither is it a criticism of either logic or reasoning to point out that both can make errors (ehm... discovered... <i>how?</i>),and seeking after infallibility, is itself an attack upon your ability to know what is real and true. Those who make such points as criticisms of logic and/or reasoning aren't seeking after what is 'right', they mean to suggest that it is possible to be human and inerrant, which is a confession that they seek to escape the burden of judgment, they seek after systems that are so perfect that they won't ever need to risk being in error, and more than anything else, they seek to escape the responsibility of taking their own judgment seriously. Ultimately what that means, is that they seek to escape from reality, and truth, in the comfort of the grandest lie of all, which is but a euphemism to divert attention away from the death and destruction that follow in its wake.
<br /><br />
Stay on the road to reality, don't take the detours and offramps. The reason <i>for</i> the rules of logic that Aristotle formulated, and why we <i>should</i> follow them, checking and verifying that your thinking is either valid, or invalid, is to bring clarity to our understanding of what is real and true, and to bring order to our thinking. Logic is less about proving that something is true, than with clarifying whether your ideas of what is true, correspond to what actually <i>is</i> real and true, and reveals to you whether the fault is to be found within your argument, or with your premises, or even the terms, that you're using.
<br /><br />
With all of that having been said, and reviewed here, there are a few other notable cautions and root fallacies noted in previous posts, to point out here, as an awareness of them helps in keeping your mind on track:
<blockquote><em><span>
<ul>
<li style="font-size: 85%;"><b>An infinite regress</b> does not lead to an explanation (in an evasion of both inductive and deductive logic), and engaging in such an effort is a giveaway that either an error, or a deception, is being concealed (<i>"It's turtles all the way down!"</i>) </li>
<li><b style="font-size: 85%;">The hypothetical </b><span style="font-size: 13.6px;"><b>assault </b></span><span style="font-size: 85%;">- when a modernist asks you to consider an unreal or impossible hypothetical - "</span><i style="font-size: 85%;">If we hypothetically, imagine ice that sinks, or grass that floats and burns, then it would it be logical to say...</i><span style="font-size: 85%;">", but they aren't teaching you to think logically, they're actively steering you away from the fundamental rule for </span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">logically</span><span style="font-size: 85%;"> building upon what is real and true, to send you instead down modernity's epistemological offramp, performing computational rules of flowcharting, rather than engaging in logical reasoning.</span></li>
</ul>
</span></em></blockquote>
All of that and a great deal more (but always at least that), are basic to what was expanded upon in Aristotle's Metaphysics, and what's been known as <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logic/">The Organon</a>, made up of his Categories, On Interpretation, the Prior Analytics, the Posterior Analytics, the Topics, and On Sophistical Refutations.
<br /><br />
What 'Epistemology' is defined as being, then - though rarely practiced as such - a system that '<i>distinguishes justified belief from opinion</i>', is only able to see that it's justified, because it first identifies what is real and true, and so can be argued for logically, and be ethically justified.
<br /><br />
That process is, and was, and should again be, understood to be one that utilizes metaphysics, logic, and ethics, in identifying what is, what follows, and what, if anything, should be done about that, by examining claims in a methodical, reasonable, and logical manner... and the Ethical portion of how we go about determining '<i>what, if anything, should be done about that</i>', is what we'll look at next.
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-33752211147654606362023-10-29T12:11:00.000-05:002023-10-30T08:57:26.392-05:00Epistemology's meaning is meaningless without Reality - You keep using that word 2In the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html" target="_blank">previous post</a> I pointed out that despite what the Textbooks, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and Wiki's, would have you believe, Epistemology is not an ancient term for an equally ancient '<i><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/" target="_blank">4th Branch of Philosophy</a></i>' that 'all the greats of philosophy' have contributed to, but is instead a term <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/ferrier/" target="_blank">coined by a Scotsmen</a> in the mid 1800s, that aided in legitimizing that equally modern '4th branch' which there was no need for in premodern philosophy. Both term & branch have served as a useful means of injecting modernity's numerous mind-numbing innovations into the field of philosophy, while at the same time steering people away from the premodern view, which first and foremost saw philosophy as an intellectual means of looking at the world from a perspective that <a href="https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D982b"> began with wonder:</a>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philosophize; wondering in the first place at obvious perplexities, and then by gradual progression raising questions about the greater matters too..."</span></em></blockquote>
, which also taught that how to avoid becoming lost in wonder, was by consciously grappling with identifying what they found to be real and true, in both theory and practice:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"It is right also to say that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action..."</span></em></blockquote>
Philosophizing for premoderns entailed using metaphysics, logic, and ethics, to identify and verify what you'd come to understand - whether that was that something that was timelessly true, or technologically effective - and how best to communicate to others that those beliefs were justifiable, and why, and what - if anything - should be done about that. IOW, for two thousand years 'doing philosophy' had included doing in practice <i>at each step</i>, what the modernists wouldn't coin the word '<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/epistemology">epistemology</a>' for, until the mid 1800s.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8oaq_Q1uKq4Y4fOO8294xETb5oWWt7WPn9ummCMUYW_A7T2c98_II_tLxzFtTTyhwNTL8ZbNu_cJmuUfp8yhrrDi2uz3BGfqbdPBP1KnQD8RdyB3hMKzaNsgt7RB58bsNiRzCt7dCzLxnpuk2owvX9uqiEVJ8lVVghUrvsB8xAuJ7Ggs2WBMMOg/s850/CSLewis-AllKnowledgeDependsOnValidityOfReasoning.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="850" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8oaq_Q1uKq4Y4fOO8294xETb5oWWt7WPn9ummCMUYW_A7T2c98_II_tLxzFtTTyhwNTL8ZbNu_cJmuUfp8yhrrDi2uz3BGfqbdPBP1KnQD8RdyB3hMKzaNsgt7RB58bsNiRzCt7dCzLxnpuk2owvX9uqiEVJ8lVVghUrvsB8xAuJ7Ggs2WBMMOg/s320/CSLewis-AllKnowledgeDependsOnValidityOfReasoning.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Modernists, OTOH, having begun by denying that we can know what is real and true, have used the meaning of the word as a deceptive cover, while the system behind it condemned 'philosophy' to being learned through textbooks, each securely wrapped up in the specialized technical jargon of various subfields, which typically rationalized whichever ideological positions of the moment - '<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/addams-jane/#StaEpi">Standpoint Epistemology</a>', '<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-phil-race/#RaciIdenWhit">Epistemology of Ignorance</a>', '<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/">Social Epistemology</a>', etc., - seemed best suited to serving the greater good of that moment in time, without reference to what is 'real and true' across time.<br /><br />
The typical reaction of those who've only encountered what the modernists call 'philosophy' in school, is that they have no intention of bothering further with philosophy at all, but no matter how understandable that reaction is, that particular 'good intention' is one that's paved many a private road to Hell, as it immediately puts you at odds with the reality of what and who you are as a human being. Like it or not, <i>no one</i> has a choice about whether or not they will have a philosophy: you already <i>have </i>one! Whether you're a drug addict, a working stiff, student or professor, it is an inescapable part of the identity of being human. The only choice that <i>is</i> open to you, is whether you'll have a sound and coherent philosophy that orders and serves your life, or an unconscious mishmash of contradictory notions that is more likely to benefit those seeking to exercise power over you for their own ends.
<br /><br />
Even those who have no burning interest in philosophy - and most don't - should still have a grasp of its basics and the common pitfalls to watch out for, just as those who have no burning interest in mathematics, should still be familiar with the basics of arithmetic, multiplication & division, and know some '<i>gotcha!</i>'s like not to divide by zero, especially as the consequences of miscalculating your ability to pay your bills, is nowhere near as consequential as those philosophical errors that can easily hamper your ability to live your life well, gut your life of meaning, and even bring your society to ruin.
<br /><br />
The good news is that it doesn't take a lot of effort to learn what you need to know, or to recognize the philosophical pitfalls & poisons lurking around us in the modern world today. In fact, even briefly hitting the highlights of what was recently covered here across <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth" target="_blank">several posts</a>, would help with putting your own sense of wonder back on solid ground, as with just a little watering of attention to the essentials will take root and develop, if you only habituate yourself to consciously and actively asking and answering three simple questions:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>'<i>What is this?</i>', (metaphysics) </li>
<li>'<i>How do I know that is real and true? (Logic)</i>' , </li>
<li>'<i>What, if anything, should I do about that? (Ethics)</i></li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
It's of course not possible to detail all of metaphysics, let alone philosophy, in a single post, or even a series of them, but the greater point is that there's no need to, for anyone who honestly pursues those three questions towards what is real and true, <i>is</i> philosophizing, and is already 'doing' epistemology as it <i>should</i> be done, and anyone doing so will benefit from the confidence of knowing that they have some justification for what they believe - not just because they say <i>'I believe!'</i>, but because they've developed an understanding of what they know and how they know it, and how to respond accordingly, while progressively freeing their lives from the vagaries and falsehoods which have accreted over the West during the last four centuries of the modern era.
<br /><br />
You could start on your own with those three questions and be far ahead of those who don't do even that, but there are a number of enticingly false trails that've ensnared and consumed the time of many truly great minds who've pursued those questions before you; or instead, giving your consideration to these highlights will reveal them and the ways they found around the more obvious detours, exits, traps and dead-ends, that lay in wait for you, and spare yourself the same trouble. Doing so will not only give you access to their wisdom & experience, it'll also reveal to you the enormous state of confusion, and the many mis-directions that the modernists have injected into the daily assumptions surrounding us in our world today, and so help you to disentangle your own thoughts from them.
<br /><br />
To begin a 'quick' (well, quicker than <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth" target="_blank">seven posts</a>) review of those highlights, we'll begin at the beginning with <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-reality-of-abstract-is-what-is.html"> The Three Acts of the Mind:</a>
<blockquote><span>
<b style="font-size: 85%;">First Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Apprehend (Understand) - We open our eyes, and whether seeing something for the first time, or understand that we know it by name, a Rock for instance, we apprehend it, conceptualize, identify it</span><br />
<b style="font-size: 85%;">Second Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Judgment - The act of mind which combines or separates two terms by affirmation or denial. 'Rock is hard' is a judgment</span>
<br />
<b style="font-size: 85%;">Third Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Reasoning - From our observations and judgments, we move towards further conclusions and applications of them. 'As rocks are hard, I should avoid striking my toe against them.'</span><br /><span style="font-size: 85%;">
</span></span></blockquote>
We're always performing these three acts of the mind, and no matter whether we do so well or poorly, the human mind, the 'difference engine' as it's sometimes been called, is constantly, naturally, observing and making distinctions between one thing and another, making a judgment about those differences and what to do about them. No matter what continent or age he's lived in, man has naturally been able to engage with and dominate his environment, by performing those Three Acts of the Mind - even though he mostly did so with no awareness of what that process was, or entailed.
<br /><br />
The first to notably begin paying conscious attention to the process of reasoning were the Greeks, and the first of them to begin trying to methodically identify and clarify what our words referred to, and whether or not what they were leading us towards, was, or could be true, was Socrates. He famously put his Socratic method to use by publicly questioning the leading voices in Athens who claimed to know something of the reality behind the popular assumptions of his time - what was meant by Good, Virtue, Piety, Justice, Power - and revealed that all too often the primary concerns of those leaders were for how those assumptions could be used to their own social and political benefit while ensnaring their audiences through them, rather than communicating something real and true with them.
<br /><br />
Despite Socrates being put to death for practicing it, his Socratic method of reasoning (what he called the 'Dialectic', is not like what <a href="https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf" target="_blank">goes by that name today</a>) caught on and was spread by followers of his like Plato, and by Plato's own student, Aristotle, who further refined their methods into a system of requirements, rules, and common errors to be watched out for when doing so, which were applicable not only to questioning members of society, but also to examining the world around us through what would become the framework for biology, physics, the arts and more.
<br /><br />
The fundamental principle that was at the root of the entire system, was what Aristotle called <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-is-truth-it-is-what-it-is-or-its.html">the first rule of thought</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">- that a thing cannot both be, and not be, in the same manner and context; </span></em></blockquote>
, and that understanding that contradictions cannot exist, was the cornerstone which Aristotle built his system upon, and it's been the distinction that truly has made the difference between what would become The West, and all of the rest - and is what Modernity has been targeting since its inception (that is what's being targeted by the nonsense of saying that a man can become a woman).
<br /><br />
How to validate, communicate, study, and argue for what is true for all, within the reality we all share, begins with identifying the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html">three different forms of knowledge</a> which we come to know that through:
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li><b>Empeiría/Epistemé</b> - often translated as only one word or the other, what we call Empirical, refers to the facts and data of experience, while Epistemé refers to the principled methods of Science; </li>
<li><b>Tékhne</b> - what we today call Technology, is the “art” or “technique” of putting the facts and data of experience to use;</li>
<li><b>Sophía</b> - Wisdom (Philosophy, philo-Sophia, being the love of wisdom) goes deeper and sees farther into how to turn the experiences and arts of living, towards taking those actions that make lives worth living</li>
</ul></span>
</blockquote>
Lacking those distinctions implicitly degrades the depth & quality of what you know to a flat '<i>if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail</i>' view of knowledge and what it might be useful for, whereas an awareness of those distinctions in what you know, allows depth and dimension to your understanding and inclines you towards a more 'well rounded' education.
<br /><br />
The philosophical awareness that reality is the basis of what we're able to recognize as being true, and that truth is the measure of what is good, provides an ever-clearer sense of man's place within the world, and in practice reveals those otherwise unseen relationships which surround and incorporate us all within what is real and true.
<br /><br />
Coincidentally (<i>not!</i>) that same philosophical awareness of reality is what the modernist's <a href="https://www.wordsense.eu/misosophy/" target="_blank">misosophy</a> (hatred of wisdom) seeks to divorce you from. How? Think about what is happening within and to a person's thoughts when they advance any of the positions plucked from <a href="https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/modernism/v-1/sections/reality-and-observation#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20prominent,but%20independent%20of%20human%20perception." target="_blank">the bitter fruits of modernity</a>, such as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><i>That may be your truth but it's not my truth</i></span></em></blockquote>
, for while a person may have their own opinion, they cannot have their own Truth, yet in the act of expressing the idea that they can, a person is denying their own ability to share their thoughts and understanding with another person - and they with them - which is isolating 'their' realities from each other. If taken seriously, that'd mean that they'd be unable to discuss with anyone else what they meant by even their own statement's words of '<i>that</i>', or '<i>my</i>', let alone by <i>'truth'</i> - how could they, if truth is not what we have or even <i>can</i> have, in common? If what is objectively true is not accessible to all, then any and every thought and statement of yours would be rendered fully and <i>completely</i> meaningless to others <i>and</i> to yourself, and could not be otherwise.
<br /><br />
You might say "<i>Well, but they don't <b>really</b> believe that</i>", but that means that they've consciously advanced a lie at the center of their mind to achieve surreptitious ends, and how could that not accomplish the very same thing? Such modernisms disengage your sense of self from the world, and deprive you of being able to trust in your fellows - what can <i>trust</i> be without <b>Truth</b>?! - and puts you in opposition to what is real and true, separating each person's words and concepts from what they refer to, ultimately rendering the intelligible world, intelligence, and the logos, into little more than meaningless sounds to be parroted as verbal tricks. Those who've been taught such modernisms, have been cast adrift in their own private chaos (see Sartre who embraced that chaos as the <a href="https://philarchive.org/archive/AKIJSE#:~:text=For%20Sartre%2C%20there%20is%20no,morality%20and%20favors%20subjective%20morality." target="_blank">ideals of existentialism</a>).
<br /><br />
Not only are all such beliefs necessarily chaotic, but their inconsistencies and contradictions are also almost comical to listen to, as "<i>That may be your truth but it's not my truth</i>" is itself declaring a universal truth while claiming that truth can't be universally known, just as the claim that "<i>No one can know anything!</i>", is itself a claim <i>to know</i> something! Or how about this oh-so Modernist gem:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'<i>Reason can't be trusted!</i>'</span></em></blockquote>
, oh... ok, so how and <i>with what</i> did you come to that conclusion? Yep, that's right! You used your <i>REASON</i> to conclude that '<i>reason can't be trusted</i>', which means, 1<sup>st</sup>, you shouldn't trust yourself, and 2<sup>nd</sup> I'm not going to trust you either. Good lord. The attentive listener who's unwilling to be diverted from what they can observe to be real and true, shouldn't hesitate to show how embarrassingly self-refuting and at odds with reality such statements are (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/is-demonstrates-that-what-is.html">see Retortion</a>).
<br /><br />
Failings such as these were as obvious and applicable to the sophists of Aristotle's time, as they are to the skeptics of our own, and the reality is that they have no choice but to implicitly, and often explicitly, utilize <i>every </i>aspect of what they're so dramatically denying, in order to deny them! Not for no reason did Aristotle note that <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.4.iv.html%20" target="_blank">if a skeptic actually took their own positions seriously</a>, they'd have to close their mouths, and sit down to await their deaths, motionlessly & silently, since,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...But if all are alike both wrong and right, one who is in this condition will not be able either to speak or to say anything intelligible; for he says at the same time both 'yes' and 'no.' And if he makes no judgement but 'thinks' and 'does not think', indifferently, what difference will there be between him and a vegetable?..."
</span></em></blockquote>
The awareness that there is something to know, and that it cannot both be and not be at the same time and context, leads to noticing not only those distinctions between the forms of knowledge we can have of that, but also that there is a distinctive pattern to how we act upon our knowledge, which Aristotle illustrated as<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html"> the Four Causes</a>:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>the <b>Material Cause</b>: “that out of which”, e.g., bronze is what a statue is made out of.</li>
<li>the <b>Formal Cause</b>: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.</li>
<li>the <b>Efficient Cause</b>: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.</li>
<li>the <b>Final Cause</b>: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, what the aim is of
commissioning a bronze statue to enhance a park setting; </li>
</ol></span></blockquote>
, by developing the habit of looking deeper into the nature of causation than only the shallowest of surface appearances, you'll be more aware of where you are in the world, more informed about what it is you are observing, and less mystified about what's going on around you - in short, an attention to causation, causes you to have a more thorough understanding of what you know matters to you.
<br /><br />
In matters of material causation, the same principle applies, in that the deeper understanding we have of the identity of what something is, the better we'll be able to understand how it changes with the circumstances of its present context which determines its Actuality and Potentiality to change (the example given previously, Baking Soda and Vinegar cause a very different reaction, than when Baking Soda is combined in a cake mix), in that 'change' is what results from being in sufficient proximity with what something else <i>is</i> - IOW, Causation is Identity in action (and interaction).
<br /><br />
That attention to what is, how we know it, and what is caused by that, reveals that whatever the sophist and skeptic might say about how seriously they take their own positions and inconsistencies, if they acted on them consistently - from crossing the street without looking, to disregarding 'too rigid' warnings on powerful medications - they'd soon be dead, and yet their shadowy inconsistencies are effective at ensnaring popular opinion, and the power & influence which that leads to, is what they <i>do</i> take seriously. Likewise, then as now, while Sophists are unconcerned about the weaknesses of their claims, in having turned away from the pursuit of truth (a wrong turn which modernity's off-ramp of 'epistemology' has detoured generations of students with), they thrive on the confusion which naturally spreads out through mishandling concepts of identity, causation, and change, easily inflames popular passions through whatever it is that is the 'Irritant of the Day' - as has happened from the Persians of Socrates' day, to the 'economics' of Marx's, and down to the global warming of today - giving them easier access to the levers of power while further undermining popular norms, as sophists have excelled at doing since the time of Zeno's paradoxes (look up Achilles losing a race to a tortoise).
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">
A fabricated doubt is a willfully arbitrary denial of reality which (if unchecked) progressively erodes ever larger swaths of your understanding, whereas a naturally arising doubt indicates a gap in your knowledge which prompts your asking questions to improve and enlarge your understanding.</div>
It was through the indirect route of causation, that modernity's first skeptic of note, David Hume, launched his attacks upon our ability to know what is real and true, and with a big assist from Descartes' 'method', he struck through our only implicit understanding of Causation, by fabricating arbitrary doubts about our ability to know what causes anything at all to happen. His assertion was that what we mistakenly take for being knowledge of cause and effect, is really nothing more than our naively associating what we see happening in sequence - 'contiguously in time' - which is all just 'one damn thing after another'. Hume, who was a nominalist (believing that words are arbitrary labels which convey no real understanding) and an empiricist (only measurable facts matter), asked if anyone had actually ever seen a 'cause', or do we simply first see one billiard ball rolling into another, and <i>then</i> on seeing the 2nd billiard ball rolling away, we assume that the one <i>caused </i>the other...r<i>iii</i>ght?
<br /><br />
Hume answered his own question, declaring that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I look for an object of 'causation' and I do not see it"</span></em></blockquote>
, and so following other such doubts concluded that if 'causation' is not a physically detectable feature like a fissure or a bump, then it doesn't 'exist'; there is 'no causation', only happenstance, and when we <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm#link2H_4_0034" target="_blank">say that striking a billiard ball</a> will cause it to roll, we don't actually <i>know</i> that striking it will cause that, we only say so because it's happened that way in the past, and we have no way of knowing that it'll ever happen that way again. Meaning that having no knowledge of identity (which was his real target), and so we can have no meaningful knowledge of what a billiard ball is, or what causes it to move when struck by another, let alone what might cause the sun to rise, or iron to rust - all we can know are memories (<i>which are...?</i>) of past facts (...<i>how?</i>), and though those are mysteriously useful in gambling on what'll happen in the future, that 'fact' can only be an uncertain guess, a probability, not a 'truth'.
<br /><br />
Ironically, for an 'empiricist', such sentiments are only possible by evading the evidence of his own senses. That Hume willfully evaded seeing this, we can easily see from his own words which make plain that he is making use of his own ability to perceive and conceive of what is real and true, in order to deny his own ability to perceive and conceive of what is real and true. Right? What, after all, <i>is</i> a memory? What is a 'fact'? Is a fact a tangible 'thing' (no, it is our conception of a tangible thing, in the context of other facts) that exists, and if not, how are you speaking of it? How do empirical 'facts' get <i>into</i> memory? How are such things committed to and recalled from our mind, except by some form of causation that's necessarily formless in nature, and which in considering it, conveys what knowledge you have of it, knowledge that can be added to, examined, and verified? Sorry Hume, but you cannot deny metaphysics, causality, and knowledge, while making use of metaphysics, causality, and knowledge, in order to deny metaphysics, causality, and knowledge - not to mention doing so with the appearance of a logical argument when logic also depends upon all three (more on that in the next post).
<br /><br />
Hume's ultimate target was not causation, but identity, and <i>especially</i> the responsibility that recognizing both entails, in that upon his asserting his conclusion that any metaphysical, moral, or ethical teachings, are but reckless conjectures which <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9662/pg9662-images.html#section12" target="_blank">Hume advised readers to</a> '<i>Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion</i>', and why wouldn't he, since he claimed that on having gone in search of his 'self' he came up empty, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4705/pg4705-images.html#link2H_APPE" target="_blank">and remarked</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"When I turn my reflection on myself, I never can perceive this self without some one or more perceptions; nor can I ever perceive any thing but the perceptions"</span></em></blockquote>
, and Hume likewise denied the self, the soul, and Free Will, he took that act of willful blindness in the face of reality to 'the next level', feigning blindness to the fact that that 'me' which he described those 'concrete mental acts' being given to, was the very <i><b>self</b></i> he denied the existence of.
<br /><br />
His necessarily meaningless assertions to the contrary, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html">Causation</a>, is not a mysterious force, and there is no need to look for a separate object of 'causality' (which would do <i>what</i> exactly?), nor is there some sort of causal pixie dust that somehow evaded Hume's observations, there is only reality as it is, which is open to all who don't refuse to see, and identify what we can see.
<br /><br />
Perhaps the best reply to such willful blindness comes from the response that Aristotle gave in his Physics to the Sophists of his time, who, like Hume, preferred to spin up their own mental notions which they 'thought' were somehow more preferable to the reality which <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html#:~:text=That%20nature%20exists%2C%20it%20would,of%20mind%20is%20clearly%20possible.">they refused to see</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and<b> to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not</b>..." [emphasis mine]</span></em></blockquote>
, but of course saying so to someone who refuses to see and hear and who denies the choice he made to do so, it would almost certainly be pointless, as such answers as those which Hume declared he was unable to find, in everything from his 'self', to causality, to knowledge, were and are easily found in the premodern metaphysics which he'd so actively evaded, and opposed, which as we'll see in coming posts, what <i>the</i> spark that escalated modernity's ongoing assault upon the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian West into open opposition to it.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">When a child first sees the explosive reaction caused by adding baking soda to vinegar, he quickly grasps that something about adding the one to the other, <i>causes</i> that eruption - it doesn't just happen 'contiguously in time', no child would tolerate such a perverse evasion of causality.
<br /><br />
And as innumerable ' volcano science projects' have demonstrated for more than a century, as the student's knowledge deepens into a more detailed understanding of the chemical identities of both substances involved, their earlier inference of being 'the cause' of the eruption, is contextually clarified, not invalidated, which is a process that will continue on down to their knowledge of what is happening at the subatomic level, where previous knowledge will be contextually sharpened, but not discarded.
<br /><br />
Causation <i>is</i> Identity in action and interaction, and the better we understand the identity of something, the better we can predict what it might cause.</div>
What we are able to know of the identity of what something <i>is</i>, tells us about how it will behave in action, and interaction, with its surroundings - what happens, happens <i>because</i> of the nature and substance of <i>what it is</i>, and in relation to what else <i>is</i> in its surroundings - subject and object exist in interaction and do not do so in isolation from each other, there is a causal relationship, and as our understanding of the nature of one identity improves, so does our understanding of what causes it to behave as it does in various contexts, with those of the planets orbiting around our sun, or of billiard balls striking each other, or of one substance changing into another as from iron to rust, or those detectable affects to our own disposition and character that are reliably <i>caused</i> by our own willingness or unwillingness to understand that what is real and true, <i>matters</i>.
<br /><br />
When you deny that, as Hume did, you soon lose the ability to even recognize yourself. His blindness to them was a choice, made through the free will which he denied that he or we have, and was likely the result of a long and habitual rebellion against reality - outside and in - to the point of his having divorced himself from reality, inside and out. Sad. And modern Epistemology, which Kant formed in reaction to Hume (more on that in coming posts) - not by trying to correct his claim's errors, but by accepting his claims and extending them into a system that begins by denying our ability to know what is real, should be a non-starter for anyone concerned with what is real and true, as the meaning of the word 'Epistemology' is necessarily meaningless, without reality.
<br /><br />
<b>Summing up: It is what it <i>is</i></b><br />
Socrates, when asked about his new system and his role in it, had the humility and self-awareness to realize that ultimate wisdom was beyond the reach of man, but what we could and should do, was recognize its priceless value and the need to pursue it, which he called Philosophy, the <i>love</i> of wisdom.
<br /><br />
Premodern philosophy's love of wisdom necessarily entails the pursuit of knowledge of what is objectively real and true, while always being aware of the possibility of being wrong or lacking important context, and engaging in that pursuit in that way leads us into a deeper understanding of ourselves, the world, and our place in it. Armed with the understanding that reality not only exists, but is worth knowing, and that knowing it <i>is</i> good, a society leads itself towards a flourishing level of education, the practice of science, and the development of technology that is beneficial to human life.
<br /><br />
Two thousand years after Socrates' time, <a href="https://archive.org/details/glenn-alexander-magee-hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition/page/1/mode/1up" target="_blank">Hegel had no such sense of humility</a> or any suspicion that he could be wrong, and convinced as he was that he already knew all that needed to be known, he concluded that he needn't <i>pursue </i>the wisdom he was sure he already had (conveniently he also pooh-poohed Aristotle's concern over contradictions), and all that he felt was left for him to do was to teach his wisdom to those who weren't too stupid to grasp it (an attitude which has been a 'tell' of those following in his misosophical footsteps to this day).
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7IQjR8HWjpm3942TrKg_ebYlE3ZW6ZmOUivdobqrOjgrCG2BNp9O7TkdB45jZs1kenv27vG491M5l_ROwFFH3sYZOVmLj6kUxvhoP6fGi3n1KAIex8uMZtJ9AR1XAiU7H4zjiSY17cKXre6v_xNu6EE8NRqY2gF5JaDlWUzUaL5LMbbK5uNpZow/s1125/FB_IMG_1690250529620.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1125" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7IQjR8HWjpm3942TrKg_ebYlE3ZW6ZmOUivdobqrOjgrCG2BNp9O7TkdB45jZs1kenv27vG491M5l_ROwFFH3sYZOVmLj6kUxvhoP6fGi3n1KAIex8uMZtJ9AR1XAiU7H4zjiSY17cKXre6v_xNu6EE8NRqY2gF5JaDlWUzUaL5LMbbK5uNpZow/s320/FB_IMG_1690250529620.jpg" /></a></div>
Modernity's doubtful certainties, lead only to false pretenses, anxiety, isolation, willful ignorance, and a regression to 'communicating' your desires through lies and the exercise of brute power and violence, while very likely devising and utilizing technologies suited to further those ends. The 'position' that we cannot know what is real and true, and that there is no issue with holding contradictory positions, is and should be beneath contempt, and that far from being the positions of a 'realistic skeptic', they are, at best, confessions of willful ignorance and intentional blindness in mind and spirit.
<br /><br />
To reload our bullet points, how we come to understand anything, is through The Three Acts of the Mind:
<blockquote><span>
<b style="font-size: 85%;">First Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Apprehend (Understand) - We open our eyes, and whether seeing something for the first time, or understand that we know it by name, a Rock for instance, we apprehend it, conceptualize, identify it</span><br />
<b style="font-size: 85%;">Second Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Judgment - The act of mind which combines or separates two terms by affirmation or denial. 'Rock is hard' is a judgment</span>
<br />
<b style="font-size: 85%;">Third Act</b><span style="font-size: 85%;">: Reasoning - From our observations and judgments, we move towards further conclusions and applications of them. 'As rocks are hard, I should avoid striking my toe against them.'</span><br /><span style="font-size: 85%;">
</span></span></blockquote>
, and through conscious attention to how & what we think, we come to understand that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>Reality exists</li>
<li>What exists, exists as some thing, which is what it's Identity is derived from</li>
<li>In becoming aware of what exists, we become aware of our selves. </li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
, and the more conscious we become of what we think and how, we are led to Aristotle's first rule of thought:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>"...the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect..."</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
, through which we come to grasp the three forms of knowledge (Episteme, Techne, Wisdom), and a realization of the reality that what is real and true, is objectively true for all, and from that realization, by making the distinctions we naturally do, in a methodical manner, we come to a better understanding of <b>Causality</b> - in the context of man's actions it entails the Four Causes (the <b>Material, Formal, Efficient</b>, and <b>Final</b> Causes), and with material causation's <b>Actual</b> and <b>Potential</b> to change being determined by the <b>Identity</b> of those materials within a given context, in which causation is essentially what results from <b><i> Identity in action and interaction</i></b>, over which our knowledge enables us to act upon and understand the world around us and our place within it.
<br /><br />
And one last point and peril to be aware of, is the crucial importance of recognizing the difference between a legitimate doubt that comes unbidden to your mind, and the artificial 'doubt' that modernity is intent upon your developing the conscious habit of inserting into your every thought.
<br /><br />
These are the doubtful distinctions between a true doubt, and an arbitrarily fabricated 'doubt' of corrosive skepticism:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li><b>A true doubt</b>, comes upon us unbidden from an unconscious understanding, and leads us to ask those questions which initiates the desire to identify and to relate to what else you know - Aristotle's "All men my nature desire to know" - and helps to form or clarify our understanding. Such naturally occurring doubts as those are valid and entirely desirable, and are the very antithesis of an arbitrary and consciously fabricated doubt.</li>
<li><b>An arbitrary doubt</b>, is not a basis for thought, this Cartesian 'method' instead eradicates methodical thinking, and is erosive to reasoning, as it transforms what had been known, into further unknowable unknowns that unceasingly divides our knowledge and understanding, and straying down those paths will not lead a thinker to knowledge and wisdom, but only to their destruction - AKA: Critical Dialectic
</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
The hard reality is that no part of metaphysics can be denied, without utilizing all of its other 'parts' to do so, and every attempt to do so affirms every part in an embarrassingly self-refuting manner (remember Retortion). Fortunately for us, knowing even only that much about what you are up against, gives the advantage of awareness which enables you to take notice of and so step around the epistemological booby traps that the modernists' have laid for us all, and so logically proceed on more securely within a world that truly is meaningful... next post.
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-43297912978387612172023-10-28T11:59:00.000-05:002023-10-30T08:57:58.786-05:00Epistemology: You keep using that word - 1In the movie the Princess Bride, in response to his Sicilian employer repeatedly blurting out the word '<i>unbelievable!</i>', the character Inigo Montoya utters what has become an iconic and meme-tastic line:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."</span></em></blockquote>
, which makes it the perfect lead-in for discussing Epistemology. Why? Because too often its origins and official meaning, are at odds with its history & modern practices, which, given that the term is concerned with verifying the truth of what we know and how we know it, is deliciously ironic.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTojMvk4TT0t3ZlowVxDSDdOZtFy8JVYmJX5qJMLjhusWmCfJLwtG4LgjycN9eU_giqZptN-hZi8z1hwEqXNGv2I5EVn3_nyDAl6r9WsZ0QXRjns35XnmVZyu0Xm0ugS85BpNcKwLTVxwoCpQM8nwyBXkVOmqbSuF5h_wWRBV0G6qch80QxzVANg/s931/Epistemology_InigoMontoya.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="522" data-original-width="931" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTojMvk4TT0t3ZlowVxDSDdOZtFy8JVYmJX5qJMLjhusWmCfJLwtG4LgjycN9eU_giqZptN-hZi8z1hwEqXNGv2I5EVn3_nyDAl6r9WsZ0QXRjns35XnmVZyu0Xm0ugS85BpNcKwLTVxwoCpQM8nwyBXkVOmqbSuF5h_wWRBV0G6qch80QxzVANg/s320/Epistemology_InigoMontoya.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
But, to avoid the Inigo Montoya treatment, before going into that use and abuse, we should clarify what the word means, which the search-engine branch of the Oxford English Dictionary defines as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">e·pis·te·mol·o·gy<br />
/əˌpistəˈmäləjē,eˌpistəˈmäləjē/<br />
_noun_
PHILOSOPHY
<br />
1. the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"he grappled with metaphysics and epistemology in his writings and sermons"</span></em></blockquote>
</span></em></blockquote>
Fair enough. However the 3rd and 4th lines of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology">Encyclopedia Britanica online</a>, reveals something that's worth giving your attention to:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><b>epistemology</b>, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. <b>Epistemology has a long history within Western philosophy, beginning with the ancient Greeks </b>and continuing to the present. <b>Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy</b>, and <b>nearly every great philosopher</b> has contributed to it.</span></em></blockquote>
, which is more than a little bit, shall we say, 'misleading'. The site <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/epistemology">etymology online</a> provides an important clue as to why I say that, with:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><b>epistemology</b> (n.)
"theory of knowledge," 1856, coined by Scottish philosopher James F. Ferrier (1808-1864) from Greek episteme "knowledge, acquaintance with (something), skill, experience," from Ionic Greek epistasthai "know how to do, understand," literally "overstand," from epi "over, near" (see epi-) + histasthai "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."</span></em></blockquote>
Do you notice a wee bit of discrepancy between the claim that 'Epistemology' traces its history as the '4th branch of philosophy' back to the classical era of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and the fact that the word was<i> first coined by a Scotsman in 1856</i>?!
<br /><br />
How did a term coined by an obscure Scotsman, <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/ferrier/" target="_blank">James F. Ferrier</a>, become accepted in modernity as the name for their 'ancient' and oh-so important '<i>4th branch of philosophy</i>'? Possibly because the name for that part of the German idealism behind their new '4th branch's system for 'justified belief', '<a href="https://iep.utm.edu/germidea/">Wissenschaftslehre</a>', wasn't exactly a catchy term, and even though it was doing an impressive job of dividing knowledge from reality, it was far too cumbersome and thoroughly modern sounding of a term to be credibly associated with the 'great philosophers' of ancient Greece, who plainly could have had no knowledge of either it or their new '4th branch of philosophy'.
<br /><br />
The word 'Epistemology', OTOH, coined from the Greek term 'Episteme', which Aristotle had used in his metaphysics for one of the forms of knowledge, looked and sounded the part, and it could easily be used to work modernism and the 'great philosophers' of ancient Greece, into the same breath. Taking a glance at an <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=deconstruction%2Cpoststructuralism%2Contology%2Contological%2Cepistemology%2Cepistemological&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3">Engram viewer</a> (which references the number of mentions of a term in the libraries of books that've been scanned), together with a helpfully misleading reference from, of all places, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology">Wikipedia</a>, illustrates that the new term had come into 'popular' usage in less than a century, which helped serve an additional purpose:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Luciano Floridi considers that there was a "renaissance" of epistemology between the two world wars. He describes it as "a bridge between early modern and contemporary philosophy of knowledge."[13] ..."</span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic41SUNVSubwZ9NuswR5OpHJ2NN8cieEuD0txa3KJQ_P2Dyr12GfE6IDvfrA1lOubTDjb7uXoXh5xdOqfclghDDFiH0FmPT8wDrCvbrEJdqaS_7r6M-1Npo7ku5IiXKj9r2wEegdFYls6tNxOEl8zeaqDTsCEQN3FRnubFGO6MKWaQhHUpfZjv6Q/s757/Epistemology_Ngram.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="757" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic41SUNVSubwZ9NuswR5OpHJ2NN8cieEuD0txa3KJQ_P2Dyr12GfE6IDvfrA1lOubTDjb7uXoXh5xdOqfclghDDFiH0FmPT8wDrCvbrEJdqaS_7r6M-1Npo7ku5IiXKj9r2wEegdFYls6tNxOEl8zeaqDTsCEQN3FRnubFGO6MKWaQhHUpfZjv6Q/s320/Epistemology_Ngram.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
, and true to its misleading origins, we can cue Inigo Montoya once again here, over associating with the word 'bridge', as it's use has less to do with being a 'bridge' between competing modern philosophies, than as an offramp created to detour unwary thinkers away from any remaining paths to premodern philosophy; it's used to give the impression that the only worthwhile philosophical destinations were (are) one or more of modernity's many fractious varieties, while at the same time portraying any classical alternatives as little more than pesky footnotes (<a href="https://www.bing.com/search?q=footnotes+to+plato&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=footnotes+to+plato&sc=10-18&sk=&cvid=9A928927A6044025B92DAD2A985C48EE&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=">IYKYK</a>) that aren't worth exploring.
<br /><br />
And <i>that's </i>why I say that Inigo Montoya's "<i>You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.</i>", is the perfect meme for modern 'Epistemology'.
<br /><br />
<b>Epistemology: A method in need of its meaning</b><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 35%;">To be 'fair', my identifying 'Epistemology' as the '4th branch of Philosophy', is a matter of convenience, as a quick search will show you that modernity now refers to anywhere from three to ten or more 'branches', most of which differ even on which branch is first, let alone fourth, as well as multiple variations such as having Ethics paired with Esthetics as minor branches under Axiology as the 'major' branch for studing 'value', and so on.
<br /><br />
Following after Socrates' time, when philosophy essentially consisted of one branch, the 'love of wisdom', somewhere between Aristotle (who saw Logic as a tool, not a branch) and the Stoics (who did view Logic as a branch), and began to be classify it along the lines of three major questions of 'First Philosophy':<br />
<blockquote> <b>1</b> - <i>'What is there to know?'</i> (<b>Metaphysics</b>, physics, sciences, etc.),<br />
<b>2</b> - <i>'How do I know that?'</i> - <b>Logic</b>, mathematics, etc.,<br />
<b>3</b> - <i>'What should I do about that?'</i> <b>Ethics</b>, politics, economics, aesthetics (art), rhetoric, etc.,
</blockquote>
, which in time became referred to as the major and minor branches of philosophy.
<br /><br />
The problem with the Modern's use of 'branches', is that by treating them as separate and distinct compartments, rather than integrated features of one philosophy, they are used to limit & control philosophical thought, creating and exploiting divisions within it.<br />
For those with an interest in how Philosophy developed, <a href="https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html">this link</a> gives a fascinating tour of that, some of which I agree with, <i>much </i> of which I do not (<i>especially</i> with the site's approval of Wittgenstein - <i>gack!</i>), but all of which is interestingly, and for the most part, fairly, presented.</div>
The truth is, of course, that despite never having had use of the term 'Epistemology', a deep concern for the nature, meaning, and validation of knowledge, was something that philosophers from Socrates (who lost his life in that pursuit) to Aquinas were <i>very</i> much driven by. While Thales of Miletus is usually credited as having been the first philosopher, what he began wondering about was the physical world around us, it was Socrates who first began methodically wondering about what it is we do when thinking, and why, which his student Plato elaborated upon in his dialogs, and which Plato's student, Aristotle, reformulated into the first means for establishing an intelligible framework and systematic means for seeking, justifying, and conveying, our knowledge of what is real and true, and what to do about that.
<br /><br />
How the ancients managed to do that without the use of modernism's shiny new '<i>4th branch of Philosophy</i>', was by not approaching philosophy as a conglomeration of compartmentalized 'branches', but by employing philosophy as a system whose features enabled us to examine and give guidance for your thinking, from "First Principles" (Metaphysics) that root your reasoning in experience, and identifying what <i>is</i>, and what <i>truth</i> is, through <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html">the three forms of knowledge</a> we grasp all of that through, together with the analytics which uses logic to validate your knowledge (as a carpenter would use a tool), with ethics clarifying how to properly respond in light of what you know to be real and true, and how best to express that through the rhetoric and poetics. In short, in their view the purpose of philosophy - the love of wisdom - not only <i>required </i>your being able to meaningfully know what <i>is</i> real and true, and how to justify it, that was central to philosophy as a whole, rather than one of a number of compartmentalized branches that tend to produce <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/#NonObje" target="_blank">incomprehensible answers bereft of meaning</a>, as it tends to operate in our world today.
<br /><br />
From classical times on up into the Renaissance, not only had philosophy provided the means for bringing method and clarity to how people thought, it also stressed the importance of exposing those shadowy notions which sophists are so adept at using to acquire the power to operate within and upon society. But of course, as what the modernists desire most is the power to reinvent reality in their own image, they needed those shadowy uncertainties to operate within, and so to one degree or another, they all - from Descartes through Hegel, and on down the line to today - gravitated towards ever more clever means to '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/07/disorienting-america-modern-thinking.html" target="_blank">muddy the waters</a> to make them appear deep</i>'.
<br /><br />As it turned out, the Scotsman's new 'ancient term' of 'Epistemology' gave a useful appearance of legitimacy to the modernist's new '4th branch of philosophy', and ever since then, it (in actual practice, rather than its supposed meaning) has been the primary tool for moving the philosophical goal posts away from what can be known to be real and true, and over onto the turf of whichever ideology seems most suited to the moment for steering popular thought away from the clarity and wisdom of premodern philosophy, which had for over two thousand years made modernity's new tool and branch unnecessary.
<br /><br />
And yet with all that having been said, I've often spoken of the importance of Epistemology... <i>why?</i> Because despite my hostility to <i>how</i> the term has been foisted upon us and to how it <i>is</i> routinely misused & abused, the fact is that Epistemology - its purported meaning, rather than its modern practice - entails the unified application of metaphysics, logic, and ethics, and anyone who takes the time to employ the term in accordance with its proper meaning, will regain the ability to safely navigate around the many booby-traps that modernity has positioned in our path, and every instance of doing so helps with putting the West back upon solid ground again.
<br /><br />
We'll look at how to align what Epistemology does, with what the word means, over the next few posts.
<br /><br />Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-83484866084969150412023-10-09T19:58:00.001-05:002023-10-09T20:05:18.042-05:00To Indigenous Peoples Everywhere: A Hearty Happy Columbus Day!It's that time again, to speak truth to the power of the woke folk who fail to give any thought to the discordant noise of their virtue signaling, in prattling on about wanting to change 'Columbus Day', to 'Indigenous Peoples Day' - time to update and re-post this from Columbus Day, 2015, yet again.
<br /><br />
Why? For one thing, as the helpful graphic inset between my Columbus Day pictures below shows, to celebrate 'Indigenous Peoples Day' (as our clueless and reprehensibly woke <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/10/08/a-proclamation-indigenous-peoples-day-2021/" target="_blank">White House does</a>), over 'Columbus Day', necessarily means celebrating the mass slaughter of indigenous peoples, which some indigenous peoples regularly perpetrated upon other indigenous peoples, to further the customs of their own (literally) blood thirsty religions, such as the tens of thousands slaughtered in a single day (on a regular basis) to appease the 'indigenous' people's gods of the Aztecs. One thing that Columbus's discovery of The New World heralded, was the putting of an end to horrors such as that, and no, none of the atrocities typically attributed to 'The West', come even close to that level of savage barbarity. And <i>no</i>, such barbarity and slaughter wasn't limited to the Aztecs alone (or perhaps you were unaware of what <a href="http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/powhatanwaraims.html" target="_blank">Pocahontas's pop was up to prior to the English landing at Jamestown</a>?).
<br /><br />
Did some not so good things follow from Columbus's discovery of The New World? Yes. Welcome to human history - and do pay close attention please, because if you're looking for easy answers you came to the wrong world. And for those such as my troll, who try to pass off Christopher Columbus' importance as a creation of 20th Century propaganda, I look forward to your accounting for why it was that the history of America which Thomas Jefferson recommended to students, "<a href="https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove03robe/page/42/mode/2up">The history of the discovery and settlement of America</a>", which was written by William Robertson who <i>died </i>in 1793, devotes chapters to Columbus himself, not to mention his voyages? <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP-_YHx7m0x1BxU2CQqMYGEaFk3v9i-zbUn8KF0D1PYGoegvLryVVUoS1XzrwJPdCnLLVNJPFDFQ7mP3lNNVXKSGsgVZdz9pNLuagckazgr-JNu5H5UZsTLI2_fpd0NhQhs6gwnQ-sxxw9prpX1uvD90VZqku-3ZkOzNA6L8odMxUxTUqtQuA/s1284/Columbus_HistoryOfAmerica.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="1" data-original-height="902" data-original-width="1284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP-_YHx7m0x1BxU2CQqMYGEaFk3v9i-zbUn8KF0D1PYGoegvLryVVUoS1XzrwJPdCnLLVNJPFDFQ7mP3lNNVXKSGsgVZdz9pNLuagckazgr-JNu5H5UZsTLI2_fpd0NhQhs6gwnQ-sxxw9prpX1uvD90VZqku-3ZkOzNA6L8odMxUxTUqtQuA/s320/Columbus_HistoryOfAmerica.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And after years of being bombarded with unsubstantiated charges and hysterical outrage from the most outrageous folks imaginable, I think it's time, even with as small a nod as this is, to explicitly disregard the rantings of the failed and the botched, and to lift a glass of cheer and celebrate the heroic adventures of those who actually dared to do what others feared; deeds which, even though tinged with a great deal of error, led to the greatest advances for mankind in all of our known histories. Celebrate this day, even moreso because everything it represents is loathed and feared today by those who oppose celebrating this day (as the <a href="https://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-war-on-columbus-is-war-on-america.html">'Sultan of Knish' said so well</a>) of commemorating the voyage that Christopher Columbus undertook to take in 1492.
<br />
In Other Words: To Indigenous Peoples Everywhere:<br />
<br />
<b>Happy Columbus Day!</b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"In fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue..."
</i></div>
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="40%">If you don't know the rest, or refuse to repeat it, your ignorance is too deep for me to fix in so little time and space. I won't bother a protest, qualification, any hint of apology or take any other sort of a defensive stand on what is and should be recognized and celebrated on this day.
<br />
<br />
What we like to think of Captain Kirk doing, Christopher Columbus <i>actually did</i>, and he did it without electronic wizardry, without science officers or communication specialists or even replaceable extras in red shirts, but with only wooden boats, a compass and a number of guesses about how the extent of the world might be shaped.
<br />
<br />
He and some ninety crew, set out on an uncharted ocean with the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, and it was incredibly brave and bold, and resulted in Western Civilization expanding westward around the globe, and even entertaining the notion that we today need to defend or justify that, is not only stupidity on stilts, but a repudiation of all that is good.
<br />
<br /></td>
<td valign="top" width="60%"><blockquote><div style="border: 2px solid blue;">
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://www.teachingheart.net/columbus.htm" target="_blank">In fourteen hundred ninety-twoColumbus sailed the ocean blue</a>.
<br /><br />
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
<br /><br />
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
<br /><br />
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go....</span></em></div></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--BVq9u7H47E/X4UPSqrUIAI/AAAAAAAAelQ/2PvzHSKB9c8mo6XxaEfk7yYMdC1h7MIfQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1598/HappyColumbusDayToIndigenousPeoplesEverywhere.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="1" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1598" height="270" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--BVq9u7H47E/X4UPSqrUIAI/AAAAAAAAelQ/2PvzHSKB9c8mo6XxaEfk7yYMdC1h7MIfQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h270/HappyColumbusDayToIndigenousPeoplesEverywhere.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
If what Christopher Columbus ventured and accomplished isn't laudable and self-evident bad-assery to you, begone and darken my door no more, but do so with my <i>Happy Columbus Day!</i> ringing in your ears.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-10500320757938230752023-10-09T08:19:00.003-05:002023-10-09T08:19:56.106-05:00Israel has a Right not only to exist, but to define and defend its existence. PeriodIn light <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/israeli-death-toll-skyrockets-following-iran-backed-terror-attacks">of current events</a>, and as my opinions don't shift with the times, it seems like a good time to re-post this from 12 years ago, updating it only by adding two words 'and defend' to the title:
"<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2011/05/israel-has-right-not-only-to-exist-but.html"><span style="font-size: medium;">Israel has a Right not only to exist, but to define <b>and defend</b> its existence. Period.</span></a>"<div><br /><div>From May 22, 2011:</div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BEjH0blvntc/TdnFwuGJw4I/AAAAAAAAAk8/c1zBC6Tvs5w/s1600/CourtyardOfIsraeliSupremeCourt.jpg" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BEjH0blvntc/TdnFwuGJw4I/AAAAAAAAAk8/c1zBC6Tvs5w/s320/CourtyardOfIsraeliSupremeCourt.jpg" width="233" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The courtyard of the Supreme Court of Israel, <br />
intended as a physical representation of the <br />
verse from Psalm 85:11: “Truth springs from the earth, <br />
And righteousness looks down from heaven”</td></tr>
</tbody></table><strong>A couple points regarding the region now known as Israel</strong><br />
The 'ancestral homeland' of any people is of little interest to me, or of relevance to the issue... but since that's not the case with most people, a couple points are in order. <br />
<br />
First, no political entity from ancient times has persisted in any real form into modernity... with the partial exception, if give extremely generous leeway and multiple exceptions, of Egypt. If we look beyond mere genetic attributes, the reliance upon which amounts to the very definition of racism, only the Jews have any meaningful connection with the people who lived in that area in ancient times, their connection of course being that of the Jewish religion and through which they had a political presence in the area up through the time of the Romans. <br />
<br />
The peoples populating the Arab and Persian peoples (with the exception of a few pockets of highly persecuted peoples, Zoroastrians, etc, who have no significant political presence or influence today), have absolutely no connection to those inhabiting the middle eastern region today. The political affiliations which existed during those times were wiped out well over a thousand years ago. The religious beliefs of the peoples who live there in ancient times, were thoroughly assaulted and stamped out by those bearing the beliefs of those who live there today, during the brutal expansion of the Islamic crusades (tweak) which followed the founding of Islam in 7th century, which includes what historian Will Durant described as the 'bloodiest period in all of human history', when the Islamic crusaders invaded and took possession of India and that portion of it that is known today as Pakistan (sorry, Pock-eess-stahn...<i>not</i>).<br />
<br />
In fact, for those who'd like to make an issue of 'ancestral homelands', the dominant political and religious views of those who had centuries worth of established history in the area with political states having unbroken links stretching back to the time of the Romans, were those of the kingdoms and states which were avowedly Christian in their religious affiliation, and the defense of which the original European Crusaders sought to protect from the Islamic invaders.<br />
<br />
In fact, if you insist on making a case for returning lands to the 'ancestral owners' of the region, then by your own views, the Islamic invaders who currently occupy the regions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Byzantium (now Turkey), should be expelled immediately, and a 'right of return' instantly extended to the persecuted Christians and Armenians who still endure living under their oppressive control today, throughout the area.<br />
<br />
I'll assume that dispenses with any argument for ancestral rights.<br />
<br />
<strong>Modern Middle East</strong><br />
Fast forward to modern times, the relevant political considerations of the area today stem from the period following WWI, when the victors, primarily meaning Britain and France, created the current states out of the territories once controlled by the defeated Turks. The political states we know of today as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, came into being from the decisions of the Western powers, which after some juggling of other assorted regional conflicts, also included Arab Transjordan and Egypt. There was serious discussions in the early years of creating a Jewish state (of much more sensible borders than those decided upon in 1948), but for reasons of one political maneuver or another, it wasn't followed through on. <br />
<br />
Any discussion of Palestinian lands, on the other hand, as a supposed political entity, has no equivalent basis in fact; they were given no such status in any serious considerations on the part of the Western powers who were responsible for creating the modern middle east. The Palestinians were nothing more than an ethnic subset of Arabs, predominantly living in the area of Transjordan, and even prior to WWI, had no political standing there, no such place as a 'Palestinian State' (a name first given the region by the Romans in 200 a.d., redefining the region as punishment to the Jews for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_Revolt">one of their revolts</a> against them) as a homeland for ethnic Palestinian Arabs has ever existed in the area (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine">Wiki has a decent history</a> of the area from ancient times to present).<br />
<br />
Those who we call the Palestinians today have no more claim to any parts of the region than do the Jews, who also, and in the same way, had been living in the same general area, in and amongst them, for well over three thousand. Additionally, beginning in the late 19th century, the region saw an influx of European Jews who began migrating to the general area of their legendary homeland, bringing Western political and economically productive ideas and benefits with them, ideas which greatly enhanced the lands and prosperity of both peoples. But in any case, these two ethnic peoples, and others, populated the region with neither of them having had established any political claims to it.<br />
<br />
IOW, neither people has any better claim, based upon their ethnic identities or political realities, to any part of the region on the basis of their ethnicity alone.<br />
<br />
After WWII, the victorious Western powers, under the auspices of the U.N., and with the severe persecution of the Nazi Holocaust in mind, and some distressingly guilty thoughts of what might have been had they followed through with their proposals for a Jewish state after WWI, the Western powers felt it was time to redraw the political lines of the middle east, lines which of course were originally drawn by them, to include a political state surrounding the areas which currently (then), and historically, had a large population of Jews.<br />
<br />
The new design wasn't a particularly generous allotment of land, it included none of the oil producing wealth of the region - wealth discovered and produced by Western interests alone btw, - it wasn't even a contiguous allotment of land; it consisted of three odd splinters of desert along the Mediterranean and Sinai, as well as control of a portion of the Jewish holy city of Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
It was an odd, I'd say almost ridiculous token of acknowledgment, a way to soothe guilt without costing too much to the powers that be, but the fact of the matter is that it was undertaken by those who had the power to do it, those who had created all of the other states in the region as well, drawn from an area consisting of Arabs and Jews. The population numbers vary depending upon who you talk to, but saying that they were roughly equal population densities isn't far from the mark. Even so, in the agreements which created Israel, there was actually a prohibition against Jews inserted into it, barring them from settling in parts of the area which we now know of as Jordan.<br />
<br />
There was not a similar prohibition against Arabs living in the region to be known as Israel, though. IOW, the Jews living in Jordan, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, were 'legally' forced to vacate that state, while the Palestinian Arabs had no such prohibition against them from remaining in the new state of Israel.<br />
<br />
Got that?<br />
<br />
Even so, rather than accepting the lines of the new Jewish state, which were drawn in such a way as to greatly benefit the regional Arabs, at more than a little discomfort to, as well as mandated expulsion of Jews, the Arab states did what Arab states have long established a propensity for doing: they worked themselves into an hysterical lather, and the five neighboring states not only declared war upon the new state of Israel - which was just as much a product of Western political design as their own states - but declared their intent to slaughter and/or drive into the sea, the area's entire population of Jews.<br />
<br />
The amassed Arab states (nearly a half century old) invaded the tiny, splintered, non contiguous lands of the newly created, one day old, state of Israel.<br />
<br />
How's that for fair dealings?<br />
<br />
The darkly laughable result of their tribal hostility, was that, though created by the West, and benefiting from Western productions in oil, etc,, they had none of the abilities inherent in those who have adopted Western ideas of political, industrial and economic ideas (Japan, for instance) - they thought and fought under the leading of their tribal traditions, and though supplied with the fruits of Western materials - tanks, guns, etc - they were embarrassingly beaten by the tiny enclave of Jews, who <em>were</em> deeply infused with (not surprisingly, since the West is typically described as being a Greco-Roman/Judeo Christian culture) Western ideas of political, economic and military organization. <br />
<br />
In short, the Jewish David kicked the ass of the amassed Arab Goliath, all across the desert sands.<br />
<br />
The unreasoning Arab bluster resulted in a lopsided beating which still pains them today, as it should. They looked ridiculous. Better still, they should have learned from it. Fat chance. They wouldn't even admit to being beaten, and asserted that they were still in a state of war with Israel.<br />
<br />
Fine. They made their choice, and have had to live with the shame of it ever since.<br />
<br />
Some other choices were made that bear heavily on the situation today. The ethnic Palestinians who, under their own free will, chose not to stand in and with Israel, but to leave in order to join with the invaders in expectations of slaughtering and annihilating the Jewish state, found themselves, of their own free will, and as a result of a stupid choice, homeless.<br />
<br />
Having abandoned the lands they could have remained in, they had only the other areas where they had a ethnic association with, to move to. Did that happen? No.<br />
<br />
While hundreds of thousands of ethnic Jews were forced to flee the lands they'd long lived in within the Arab holdings, and with the still standing state of Israel being the only choice open to them, they settled there.<br />
<br />
The Palestinians, could have, and should have done the same. Problem was, their Arab brothers didn't want them and wouldn't allow them to settle in <i>their</i> lands. The Palestinians, arguably a sizable ethnic population, didn't even follow the lead of the Jews, and petition for a state of their own, to be drawn around their greatest area of population density, and neither would their Arab brothers have allowed them to if they had.<br />
<br />
Jordan, with no more standing than having helped to launch a war which they humiliatingly lost, annexed what is known as the West Bank, for themselves, though not for the Palestinians.<br />
<br />
Israel, from the position of having been invaded by every one of their Arab neighbors, and having victoriously and resoundingly beat them back, took possession of the lands between their bizarre original boundaries, and made themselves a contiguous state.<br />
<br />
<b>West vs. Mid-East.</b><br />
By any reading of history and the rules of war, the Arab states overplayed their hand, blundered in a military venture, and lost, and their intended victim, having beaten them back, understandably and completely justifiably, solidified and secured their state. Having attempted to live by the rule of force, they can not now lay claim to benefits through the rule of reason. There is no justifiable claim on the part of the Arab states in general, or of the ethnic Palestinian Arabs in particular, to even one square inch of Israeli lands. <br />
<br />
They attacked, they lost, they need to deal with it, as best as their primitive tribal beliefs will allow. Sadly... the intervening history is a demonstration of how well their culture enables them to do so.<br />
<br />
Israel, is a product of Western actions, not only in the creation of their political boundaries, as are the existing Arab states, but in their philosophical and religious understandings, they are a solid member of, and outpost of , the West, in a hostile middle east.<br />
<br />
To be sure, especially in their original political ideals, the Israeli state was a product of some of the worst of Western ideals, having originally chosen a socialistic political structure, but Western they were and remain. Ideas such as the rule of law live in Israel, as they are nowhere else (meaningfully) to be found in the entire region.<br />
<br />
And being Western to their core, when faced with the reality of the inherent failure of socialistic ideals, Israel has moved more and more towards a market based society and greater and greater respect for the property rights of its citizens, Jew and Arab, and have enjoyed the prosperity such choices typically bring. They have a long way to go, IMHO, but even so they are markedly and thoroughly Western to their core.<br />
<br />
<em>That</em> is what I stand with. That is what every Western nation should see first and foremost in regards to any political considerations between Arabs states and Israel, and of course any self aware citizen of the West should do the same, not out of loyalty to those of like mind, but out of regard to the facts and the ideals of individual rights which so many today only mouth a regard for. In Israel, and only in Israel, freedom and liberty and the rule of law have a home, and that is always, <em>Always</em>, worth defending, anywhere and everywhere such a state may be found.<br />
<br />
Today, such a state is found in Israel. <br />
<br />
If any remaining defender of multicultural idiocy remains, the unyielding demonstrations of the unreasoning Arab claims against them, their enthusiastic endorsement for terrorist assaults upon civilians, their insistence on ethnic, tribal and religious retribution against a political entity which stands for individual rights, must be denounced and brushed aside with the only merit it deserves: None.<br />
<br />
<b>Additional Incidentals</b><br />
The Arab states, not content with their previous humiliation, continued their 'state of war' against Israel, periodically attempting to put their actions where their rants were, and remarkably losing even more wars against Israel, which, as a result of Arab belligerence, idiocy and incompetence, continued to grow in size, thanks to their losses. Through their primitive tribal designs and military incompetence, in the wars of 1967 and 1973, they enabled the Israeli state to grow well beyond its original, and untenable, boundaries.<br />
<br />
Egypt, finally seeing some shred of reason under Anwar Sadat, partially woke up to the futility of their position and agreed on a peace with Israel, and in recognition of which Israel gave back much of the land Egypt had lost to them.<br />
<br />
Should any other state or peoples choose to acknowledge the Right of Israel to exist, Israel has made it clear that they would be willing to discuss peaceful terms and even (unwisely, I think) consider yielding some lands back to them. The Arabs have not, and so have no, none, zero, claim to them. Israel has a Right to exist, and not only is that right theirs from the same political sources which their surrounding Arab states derive their political form from, but by recourse to the far greater justification being that they are a state which respects the individual rights of those within its boundaries, a state which is established upon the rule of law and recognition of their citizens political and property rights of everyone, Jew or Arab alike, including the right of representation, which several elected members of the Israeli government demonstrate by dint of being Arabs themselves.<br />
<br />
Needless to say there is no such equivalent measures extended to Jews in the Arab states.<br />
<br />
As such, any claims, whether of political or ethnic enthusiasms, made against the people and state of Israel, have no legitimate standing and are unworthy of any consideration or claim at all. I dismiss them out of hand, without apology, and with only that amount of respect as they deserve: none.<br />
<br />
To stand with Israel, to insist on its right to exist, and its right to dispense with the lands under its control as it deems fit, is the only position open to those who might wish to hold a credible claim to believing in Individual Rights and the rule of law themselves.<br />
<br />
Any leader, one of which is unfortunately President of the United States of America, who doesn't see that as <em>the</em> primary consideration at hand, or who seeks to flatter and appease the tribal and savage claims of those opposing Israel at their expense, puts themselves at odds with the interests of Western Culture and in serious opposition to the interests of the United States of America, whose people have longstanding and valuable property interests in the region, and who would reap nothing but harm and violence should Israel falter or fall.<br />
<br />
That's where I stand, with America, with the West, and with Israel.<br />
<br />
How about you?</div></div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-43611805263747083912023-09-17T15:27:00.000-05:002023-09-17T15:27:42.638-05:00Happy Constitution Day - The 236th Birthday of considering the greatest of all reflections on the perils of human nature
Today is the 236th birthday of the United States Constitution. Peruse it or lose it... and the liberty it was written to preserve.
What was signed as completed upon this day, two hundred and thirty-six years ago, September 17th, 1787, by thirty-nine of the fifty-five Framers, was <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">the Constitution of the United States of America</a>, and whether you stand in respect for, or disrespectfully turn away from, the Flag, the National Anthem, or the Pledge of Allegiance, you do so in reference to that document which is the oldest existing instrument of its kind, still in operation.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bn-qw8tLftI/SrG_7k_okUI/AAAAAAAAALM/nrEU2IZ3QZkYcZZDYR8cDCZar0CLuTPMACPcB/s1600/WeThePeople.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bn-qw8tLftI/SrG_7k_okUI/AAAAAAAAALM/nrEU2IZ3QZkYcZZDYR8cDCZar0CLuTPMACPcB/s400/WeThePeople.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Why?
<br />
<br />
Is it simply a list of rules for governing by? Is it nothing more than a favorite fossil of '<i>white people</i>'? A document of oppression? Frederick Douglass once thought so, but because he was a thinker, in order to understand what was true, he didn't stop with answers that were given to him by others, but continued on thinking upon the matter, and so <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/">discovered the Truth which such vile falsehoods seek to smother</a> and erase.
<br />
<br />
But today I'm really not much concerned with your answers to those 'points', but am only interested in whether or not you are familiar with the ideas, principles and purposes which animated the writing of it - are you? And if not... what worth can your opinion on it - pro or con - have for me, or for anyone else?
<br />
<br />
Whether you mouth its praises, or make showy protests against it, without understanding what it is you are referencing - your praises and protestations fail to even rise to the level of being wrong, they are but verbal dust to be brushed away, meaningless and of no consequence. But if you are one of that thoughtless many, you may take comfort in the knowledge that you are in the happy company of millions of such Pavlovian 'Conservatives', Pro-Regressive Leftists and Libertarians, for whom the United States Constitution is little more than a paper bell which they bark at.
<br />
<br />
But for those of you who <i>do </i>see it as more than a mere object of ink upon paper; for those of you who don't insult the memory of those who strove to produce it as having been anything other than men of flesh and blood; for you who understand that it was written so as to give physical form to, enable, and implement, some of the greatest political ideas of Western Civilization:
<blockquote>
<ul><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<li>that Individual Rights result from the nature of being human("<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...</a>"), </li>
<li>that men who understand that are capable of self governance, </li>
<li>that well ordered argument can lead to a self-correcting means of governance,</li>
<li>that such a system, established by such a people, can enable lives lived in liberty while in society with others, so long as the beast of Power is bound down and limited by laws whose purpose is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of every person </li>
</span></em></ul>
</blockquote>, for you and all such people as that, who keep and bear intellectual arms through a document such as this, Liberty <i>is</i> possible.<div><br />
But it is <i>only</i> possible for those who take the trouble to understand it.
<br />
<br />
For those intemperate folk who simply wish to sing the praises of, or rain curses down upon, that which they know little or nothing of, so that they can '<i>do what they will</i>', as they want, <i>because</i> they <i>desire</i> to... well for them, as <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/660#lf0006_anchor_007">Edmund Burke said in the face of the debut of Fascism</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”</span></em></blockquote>
Whether you are '<i>for or against it</i>', especially on this day, in <i>our</i> day, you'd be wise to consider what would happen if we should lose the last vestiges of it, and those protections it uniquely extends to both sides.
<br />
<br />
For those of you who already do, or who are at least willing to make the effort to understand those ideas which animated the framing of this document, those of you who understand that such principles and ideas as these cannot be owned by any race or culture, but can only be discovered by some for the benefit of all, then by virtue of that understanding, you and I are unified through these thoughts which were so well formed, written down, and 'completed' (and not to forget <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/12/bill-of-rights-at-219-years.html#Presentation%20and%20Debate">the first debate on amending</a> its completion), on <i>'the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven'</i>.
<br />
<br />
What is it that we celebrate today, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/" target="_blank">Constitution </a>Day, but the efforts of our Founding Fathers, 236 years ago, to harness the pursuit of power, and force it to serve the pursuit of happiness? It is simply the greatest achievement in history, to date, to enable men to live in liberty, with one another, <i>while disagreeing with each other</i>, under the protection of the Rule of Law.<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html">We the People of the United States</a>, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ia1s1RFC1IE/UFfwZEg_OKI/AAAAAAAAC6I/O1vzF-J9YoM/s1600/Washington_Constitutional_Convention_1787.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ia1s1RFC1IE/UFfwZEg_OKI/AAAAAAAAC6I/O1vzF-J9YoM/s320/Washington_Constitutional_Convention_1787.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
It's worth noting that our Founding Generation found the efforts of the Framers of the Constitution... wanting.
<br /><br />
They very nearly refused to ratify the document, <i>not </i>because it wasn't an elegant solution to the harnessing of power, but because they felt it didn't go far enough in securing our Individual Rights.
<br /><br />
But, in the end, they took a risk that politicians could be trusted to provide the lacking Bill of Rights afterwards, and though those politicians almost reneged, James Madison insisted that their word be kept, and though he initially disliked the idea of a Bill of Rights, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html">he submitted a series of amendments</a> which, after vigorous debate, became the original Ten Amendments to the Constitution that we know today as the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html">Bill of Rights</a>, which were amended to the Constitution for the purpose of restraining the power which the Constitution harnessed into the hands of men:
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.<br />
The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--"</span></em></blockquote>
Madison didn't dislike the idea of a Bill of Rights because he didn't want to secure our Rights, but because he feared that any list of Rights, in the hands of politicians, would serve as snares and loopholes to all of our Rights, limiting them to only those words written upon parchment. But in the process of writing his amendments, he hit upon the ideas that would become our 9th and 10th Amendments, reserving all those Rights and Powers not listed, to the people and those powers not listed, to the states.
<br />
<br />
We have recently come through a tumultuous election, followed by a series of events that are "<a href="http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm">testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.</a>" ...
<br /><br />
If you have not considered what rests at the core of our Constitution, the balancing of powers against powers, and forcing ambition to serve liberty... you must realize that it is not an easy task. As Madison put it in <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm">Federalist #51</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span><span style="font-size: 85%;">"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of </span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">attack. Ambition</span><span style="font-size: 85%;"> must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. </span><b style="font-size: 85%;">But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.</b><span style="font-size: 85%;"> In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."</span></span></em></blockquote>
We've passed through elections with charges of fraud, we've ended our longest war in utter chaos and left Americans behind in enemy territory, we have politicians, generals, media and individuals, behaving as if they have no understanding of, concern for, or interest in this document which alone can serve to bind the fearsome power of government down with laws. It is up to you, <i>We The People</i>, to consider whether or not that power is balanced against anything at all, so as to serve your liberty - or to extinguish it.
<br />
<br />
Our Constitution was devised so as to put Government at the service of <i>your</i> ability to live your own life. Is it still serving that function, or imperiling it? That's a question you'd better consider, because it will determine the direction that this government turns towards, or turns forever away from, either enabling you, your children and your children's children, to live their own lives - or not.<br />
<br />
One final point, whether you are an old hand with, or relatively new to, this document and its ideas, I take it as an obvious point that your reading of it can be greatly improved and informed by those arguments for, and against it, that were in the minds of those who debated the writing and ratifying of it. One of the best tools I've ever found for considering and reflecting upon the whole or particular parts of the Constitution, is the University of Chicago's site "<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html" target="_blank">The Founders Constitution</a>". Scroll down on the contents page and you'll find that it goes through the Constitution clause by clause, and that each is supplied with a list of links to those relevant portions of not only the <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm" target="_blank">Federalist</a> and <a href="http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers" target="_blank">Anti-Federalist</a> Papers, but to documents which the Founders had in mind when writing the Constitution, to what the Anti-Federalists objected to (this is particularly helpful in understanding the arguments <i>for</i> the Constitution which the Federalist Papers make), as well as early Supreme Court opinions and judgments that were relevant to that clause being acted upon, as well as the commentaries by early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (which are fantastic).
<br />
<br />
Without further ado:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #990033; font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";"><b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html" target="_blank">Constitution of the United States and the First Twelve Amendments 1787--1804</a></b></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html">We the People</a></span></b> of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. I.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 1</a>. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 2</a>. The House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second Year by the People
of the several States, and the Electors in each State
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.<br />
<br />
<!--[Volume 1, Page 30]-->
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven
Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he
shall be chosen.<br />
<br />
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within
this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which
shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of
free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term
of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of
all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made
within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress
of the United States, and within every subsequent Term
of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be
made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to
chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six,
New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland
six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina
five, and Georgia three.<br />
<br />
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any
State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of
Election to fill such Vacancies.<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_3_1-2.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 3</a>. The Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the
Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall
have one Vote.<br />
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence
of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally
as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of
the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second
Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the
fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of
the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second
Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise,
during the Recess of the Legislature of any State,
the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments
until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies.<br />
<br />
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained
to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen
of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be
an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.<br />
<br />
The Vice President of the United States shall be President
of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be
equally divided.<br />
<br />
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
or when he shall exercise the Office of President of
the United States.<br />
<br />
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person
shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.<br />
<br />
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification
to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment
and Punishment, according to Law.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_4_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 4</a>. The Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,
except as to the Places of chusing Senators.<br />
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year,
and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,
unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_5.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 5</a>. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections,
Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and
a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;
but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,
and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent
Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties
as each House may provide.<br />
<br />
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with
the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.<br />
<br />
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts
as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas
and Nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered
on the Journal.<br />
<br />
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall,
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than
three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the
two Houses shall be sitting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 6</a>. The Senators and Representatives shall receive
a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained
by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach
of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance
at the Session of their respective Houses, and in
going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech
or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in
any other Place.<br />
<br />
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for
which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under
the Authority of the United States, which shall have
been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been
encreased during such time; and no Person holding any
Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either
House during his Continuance in Office.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 7</a>. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose
or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_2-3.html">Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives</a><!--[Volume 1, Page 31]-->
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
be presented to the President of the United States; If he
approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,
who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration
two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the
other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become
a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both
Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the
Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall
be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If
any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten
days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented
to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he
had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law.
<br />
<br />
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be
necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be
presented to the President of the United States; and before
the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him,
or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two
thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according
to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of
a Bill.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 8</a>. The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_2.html">To borrow Money</a> on the credit of the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_3_commerce.html">To regulate Commerce</a> with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_citizenship.html">To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization</a>, and
uniform Laws on <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_bankruptcy.html">the subject of Bankruptcies</a> throughout
the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_5.html">To coin Money</a>, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_6.html">To provide for the Punishment </a>of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_7.html">To establish Post Offices</a> and post Roads;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_8.html">To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts</a>, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_9.html">To constitute Tribunals</a> inferior to the supreme Court;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_10.html">To define and punish Piracies and Felonies</a> committed
on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_11.html">To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal</a>,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html">To raise and support Armies</a>, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_13.html">To provide and maintain a Navy</a>;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_14.html">To make Rules for the Government and Regulation</a> of
the land and naval Forces;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_15.html">To provide for calling forth the Militia</a> to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_16.html">To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia</a>, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html">To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever</a>,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State
in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_18.html">To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper</a>
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government
of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 9</a>. The Migration or Importation of such Persons
as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the
Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or
duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding
ten dollars for each Person.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_2.html">The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus</a> shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_3.html">No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law</a> shall be
passed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_4.html">No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid</a>, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before
directed to be taken.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_5.html">No Tax or Duty</a> shall be laid on Articles exported from
any State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_6.html">No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce</a>
or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of
another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_7.html">No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury</a>, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to
time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_8.html">No Title of Nobility</a> shall be granted by the United
States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress,
accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title,
of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign
State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 10</a>. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,
or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing<!--[Volume 1, Page 32]-->
the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of
Nobility.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_2.html">No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress</a>, lay
any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what
may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection
Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid
by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use
of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws
shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_3.html">No State shall, without the Consent of Congress</a>, lay any
Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time
of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War,
unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. II.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 1</a>. The executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America. He shall hold
his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be
elected as follows<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_2-3.html">Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors</a>, equal to
the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of
Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed
an Elector.<br />
<br />
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and
vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall
not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for,
and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the
Government of the United States, directed to the President
of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in
the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the
whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal
Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President;
and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse
the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall
be taken by States, the Representation from each State
having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist
of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States,
and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a
Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the
Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should
remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.<br />
<br />
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the
Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes;
which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_5.html">No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States</a>, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.<br />
<br />
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or
of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the
Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve
on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law
provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or
Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring
what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer
shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed,
or a President shall be elected.<br />
<br />
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services,
a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased
nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have
been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period
any other Emolument from the United States, or any of
them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_8.html">Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall
take the following Oath or Affirmation</a>:--"I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 2</a>. The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion,
in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of
their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_2-3.html">He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate</a>, to make Treaties, provided two thirds
of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate,
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers
of the United States, whose Appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment
of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments.<br />
<br />
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by
granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_3.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 3</a>. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
Information of the State of the Union, and recommend
to their Consideration such Measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in<!--[Volume 1, Page 33]-->
Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the
Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such
Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors
and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the
Officers of the United States.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_5s18.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 4</a>. The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. III.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 1</a>. The judicial Power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 2</a>. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies
to which the United States shall be a Party;--to
Controversies between two or more States;--between a
State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of
different States,--between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.<br />
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,
the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all
the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_3.html">The Trial of all Crimes</a>, except in Cases of Impeachment,
shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the
State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;
but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall
be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law
have directed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 3</a>. Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of
two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.<br />
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment
of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work
Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life
of the Person attainted.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. IV.</b><br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 1</a>. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each
State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings
of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records
and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 2</a>. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.<br />
<br />
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or
other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in
another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority
of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be
removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.<br />
<br />
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under
the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence
of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged
from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on
Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_1.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 3</a>. New States may be admitted by the Congress
into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or
erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
the States concerned as well as of the Congress.<br />
<br />
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
or other Property belonging to the United States; and
nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular
State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_4.html"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Section</span> 4</a>. The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when
the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a5.html">Article. V</a>.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid
to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed
by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and
that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's
equal Suffrage in the Senate.<br />
<br />
<!--[Volume 1, Page 34]--><br />
<b>Article. VI.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_1.html">All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into</a>, before
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid
against the United States under this Constitution, as under
the Confederation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_2.html">This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States</a>
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html">The Senators and Representatives before mentioned</a>,
and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a7.html">Article. VII</a>.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall
be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
the States so ratifying the Same.<br />
<blockquote>
The Word, "the," being interlined between the
seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The
Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure
in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words
"is tried" being interlined between the thirty second
and thirty third Lines of the first Page and
the Word "the" being interlined between the forty
third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest <span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">William Jackson</span> Secretary</blockquote>
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the
States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty
seven and of the Independance of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto
subscribed our Names,<br />
<br />
Go: <span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";">Washington</span>--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia<br />
<table border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>New Hampshire</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>John Langdon<br />
Nicholas Gilman</td>
<td>}</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Massachusetts</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Nathaniel Gorham<br />
Rufus King</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Connecticut</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wm. Saml. Johnson<br />
Roger Sherman</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New York</td>
<td></td>
<td>Alexander Hamilton</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New Jersey</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wil: Livingston<br />
David Brearley.<br />
Wm. Paterson.<br />
Jona: Dayton</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Pensylvania</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>B Franklin<br />
Thomas Mifflin<br />
Robt Morris<br />
Geo. Clymer<br />
Thos. FitzSimons<br />
Jared Ingersoll<br />
James Wilson<br />
Gouv Morris</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Delaware</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Geo: Read<br />
Gunning Bedford jun<br />
John Dickinson<br />
Richard Bassett<br />
Jaco: Broom</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Maryland</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>James McHenry<br />
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer<br />
Danl Carroll</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Virginia</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>John Blair--<br />
James Madison Jr.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>North Carolina</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wm. Blount<br />
Richd. Dobbs Spaight.<br />
Hu Williamson</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>South Carolina</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>J. Rutledge<br />
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney<br />
Charles Pinckney<br />
Pierce Butler.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Georgia</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>William Few<br />
Abr Baldwin</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";"><b>Amendments to the Constitution</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";"><b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html">Preamble to the first ten Amendments</a>:</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Congress of the United States;
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--</i></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Article I</b> - Congress shall make no law respecting an <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html">establishment of religion</a>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html">freedom of speech</a>, or of the press; or the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_assembly.html">right of the people peaceably to assemble</a>, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<br />
<br />
<b>Article II </b>- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html">right of the people to keep and bear Arms</a>, shall not be infringed.<br />
<br />
<b>Article III</b> - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIII.html">in any house</a>, without <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIIs12.html">the consent of the Owner</a>, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.<br />
<br />
<b>Article IV</b> - The <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIV.html">right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated</a>, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<br />
<br />
<b>Article V</b> - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">due process of law</a>; nor shall <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV_due_process.html">private property be taken for public use, without just compensation</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VI</b> - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">right to a speedy and public trial</a>, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VII</b> - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVII.html">right of trial by jury shall be preserved</a>, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VIII</b> - Excessive bail <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVIII.html">shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments</a> inflicted.<br />
<br />
<b>Article IX</b> - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIX.html">shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Article X</b> - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendX.html">are reserved to the States respectively</a>, or to the people.
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" src="../images/single_line.gif" /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica";"><b>The Founders' Constitution</b></span><br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html" target="_blank">Volume 1, Chapter 1, Document 9</a><br />
<br />
The University of Chicago Press<br />
<i>Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States</i>. Edited by Charles C. Tansill. 69th Cong., 1st sess. House Doc. No. 398. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927.
</div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-32109255274505084462023-09-11T07:55:00.001-05:002023-09-11T07:55:13.400-05:0022 Years Later - Who are we, who now remember September 11th, 2001?In previous posts in remembrance of September 11th, 2001, I've noted that who we are as Americans, has been becoming less recognizable than the date we're remembering, and if anything, that lack of recognition has been growing between us, as that time in September has been receding from us into the past. The painful truth is that what has most unified Americans, before <i>and </i>after 9/11, has been our opposition to each other; a unity formed from our general ignorance of the history and ideas that made America possible 225 years before that awful day. As that is clearly still the case, and with an emphasis upon my continued sentiment of '<b><u>Screw healing, keep the wound raw - remember what was done to America, and what that should mean to <i>us as</i> Americans!</u></b>', I'll repeat my post from 2021, followed by my 2018 remembrance of the events of September 11th, 2001:<br />
<b><div><b><br /></b></div>[From 09/11/2021] What we've forgotten to remember</b><br />
Something a little different to begin marking the 20th year since September 11th, 2001. My usual remembrance will be down below, but I'm not willing to pretend that our present circumstances don't matter in relation to it.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JOBh66h7oYw/YTwqgDzpkcI/AAAAAAAAhV8/aGJVE7BafsoPGhVUOBzz4RjjNdrkVZ00ACLcBGAsYHQ/s606/BeforeTheDateMattered.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="425" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JOBh66h7oYw/YTwqgDzpkcI/AAAAAAAAhV8/aGJVE7BafsoPGhVUOBzz4RjjNdrkVZ00ACLcBGAsYHQ/w280-h400/BeforeTheDateMattered.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
Two things we've forgotten about September 11th, 2001: the day before, and the day after, and the worst constant between them.
<br /><br />
On the day before, I could take the kids to the airport, walk in and stroll on up to the gate with them to wait for their mom to come out of the plane. No TSA, or any of the other measures that have followed since the day after.
<br /><br />
On the day after, there were flags flown everywhere you looked, everyone was thinking about America and what it meant to them, and to how we'd destroy those who did 9-11 to us.
<br /><br />
Those aspects of the day before, and the day after, have all but vanished.
<br /><br />
What <i>has </i>remained constant from the day before, and the day after September 11th, 2001, and every day from then to now, is the sense of political fury, recrimination, and partisan obstruction, directed towards 'the other side' - the day before, it was over the Bush v Gore election of 2000, the day after it was about the day before and what we did about it afterwards. From then to now, every imaginable excuse for partisan disagreement has been embraced by all sides. <div><br /></div><div>IOW, what it is that we are unified in as Americans, is our opposition to each other.
<br /><br />
That's not a good sign.
<br /><br />
What has remained far too constant from then to now, is that people have given too little thought to thinking about what is important about what America is, and what it depends upon.
<br /><br />
20 years later, what's remained constant between the day before, and the day after, is not only our anger at the political opposition, but that people have given so little thought to understanding what it was that caused us to be attacked, as if it doesn't really matter what America is, and depends upon, in order to be America.
<br /><br />
And the people who <i>We The People</i> have put in our government today exemplify our lack of understanding of who we are, who we should be, and why.
<br /><br />
I've spent the last several weeks reading even further into what those that <i>We The People</i> have put in charge of our children's educations, which has in fact gone into educating the generation that has grown up since September 11, 2001, about who they are and why.
<br /><br />
It's been a disgusting experience. But there's little mystery as to why so few care, or care to remember.<br /><br />
We have people in our schools and government today, that hate what America is and means, every bit as much as those who killed thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001. And they were there long before September 11th, 2001, and they've only intensified their positions and numbers, since then.
<br /><br />
Almost worse than that, we have many, many, more people in and out of our government, who care very little about that. In a nation founded upon a set of ideas, they don't think that those ideas matter much at all.
<br /><br />
That's unacceptable. It should be noted that what can't continue, won't.
<br /><br />
If you remember September 11th, 2001, and forget what you, and America, are, and what each requires - it doesn't much matter what you remember about this day, or any other.
<br /><br />
The chaos surrounding our schools and education today, is an indication that people <i>might </i>be beginning to realize that it <i>does </i>matter what we know about who we are, and what America is and depends upon, and the importance of our taking care in putting the right people into our schools and government.
<br /><br />
On September 11th, 2001, nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered. It is right and proper that we commemorate that. But for what happens to America to really matter, <i>We The People</i>, have to take the time to understand what it means to be Americans. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's up to us. It's up to you. And it's that which is needed for the memory of September 11th, to be as meaningful as it <i>should </i>be, to those living in America and <i>should</i> be Americans.
<br /><br />
Make it matter. Make it worth remembering. Because it was and is most assuredly a day to remember. And now, back to then:<br /><br />
<b>[From 09/11/2018] Remember, Remember the 11th of September</b><br />
And now it is September 11th once again, and once again it is time to remember. We remember September 11th because of what happened upon September 11th, 2001. September 11th is not '<i>Patriot's Day</i>', and it's damn sure not '<i>a day of service</i>' (other than military service). September 11th, 2001 is a day to remember that the full brutality and destruction that man is capable of was deliberately visited upon America in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville Pennsylvania. We should remember. We should reflect. Those responsible should have been and should be destroyed, and those whose negligence had enabled it, and those who excuse it, and those who minimize it, should be despised and reviled by all who remember. We must remember so that the horror of September 11th, 2001 is confined to the past and is not allowed to slip past us and out into another clear blue sky in the future.
<br /><br />
Screw healing.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lnH_zg8V6mo/W5e5vVKeKvI/AAAAAAAAZbk/k30vG3pLPOAn2ZAOfp1z_hivPFB138KTgCLcBGAs/s1600/ny7.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="410" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lnH_zg8V6mo/W5e5vVKeKvI/AAAAAAAAZbk/k30vG3pLPOAn2ZAOfp1z_hivPFB138KTgCLcBGAs/s320/ny7.jpg" width="296" /></a></div><br />
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.
<br /><br />
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish nothing more than to destroy that possibility.
<br /><br />
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but History - in reflection and action - will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember. It will take note of whether or not we take note of those who had taken, and those who have given, the last full measure of devotion -- and it will judge whether or not we here are highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; whether or not this nation, shall continue to give birth to, and stand up for and defend freedom, and it shall judge from that, whether or not government of the people by the people for the people, shall, or shall not perish from the earth.
<br /><br />
And it will judge and act accordingly.
<br /><br />
Remember September 11, 2001.
<br /><br />
In remembering what happened on September 11th, 17 years ago, I've patched this post together from a number of memories and posts and comments I've made from then to now. Where they began, of course, was on the morning of September 11th, 2001, when my wife, who was a flight attendant with TWA, called me as I was driving into work on I-70, just passing through Earth City, to tell me a plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.<br />
<br />
I was thinking a Cessna, but she said it sounded like it was larger, the impact too large. I knew a plane had once hit the Empire State building on a stormy night, but she said the weather looked clear, how could that be possible? As we were talking, another jet hit the other tower.<br />
<br />
That made it clear what was going on, we decided that she'd pick the boys up from school and bring them home.<br />
<br />
I continued on into work, and news came that another plane had hit the Pentagon.<br />
<br />
A blue streak of horror and animal fury blasted back at my radio as the news came that one of the towers was collapsing. As I walked into work, 7th floor of A.G. Edwards, people were crowded around the T.V. in the lobby and the second tower came down.<br />
<br />
I went to my desk, one of the guys there was trying to get a hold of his son who worked in one of the World Trade Center towers. I turned to our project coordinator and told him I wouldn't be working that day, and headed for home.<br />
<br />
I told the boys the obvious as we watched the news, that the world had just changed, we were at war, and nothing would be the same.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5IPQRVcsQsw/W5e6GgxFnfI/AAAAAAAAZb8/KA3HCTbYHf8Uust1gpTYOgPJUCvfcKidQCEwYBhgL/s1600/wtc23.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="420" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5IPQRVcsQsw/W5e6GgxFnfI/AAAAAAAAZb8/KA3HCTbYHf8Uust1gpTYOgPJUCvfcKidQCEwYBhgL/s320/wtc23.jpg" width="210" /></a></div>
<br />
To those who want to think of this day as a time for healing or a day of service, Fuck You. We are not going back to the reflexive evasion of reality which is what made this day possible.<br />
<br />
Political Correctness began its well deserved death that day ten years ago today, it may be a long, agonizingly slow death, fitting perhaps for the cancer that it is, but it was the beginning of the end of the view that it is in any way good or proper to pretend a lie can pretty up the truth.<br />
<br />
The lie is nothing but darkest evil, and the light of Truth chases, confines and obliterates it... as we have, and will do, to those who did this evil – you are nothing, and to nothingness you will be returned.<br />
<br />
And yet there are those who will shake their head and ask "How do you kill an idea?"<br />
<br />
How do you kill an idea? If it is an idea that people are not open to discussing, an idea that will not tolerate reasonable alternatives, an idea that requires your death or your submission, then the answer to that question is a very simple one:<br />
<br />
You cannot defeat an idea.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8sCYMEeNnvY/W5e6Gih_dOI/AAAAAAAAZcA/bLRKEzZWVrkVf9o_suAEl17i3VTHJg0vQCEwYBhgL/s1600/9-11.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="639" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8sCYMEeNnvY/W5e6Gih_dOI/AAAAAAAAZcA/bLRKEzZWVrkVf9o_suAEl17i3VTHJg0vQCEwYBhgL/s320/9-11.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
All you can do is make physically certain that those of the enemy who might survive a war with you, would live in constant fear and dread at the thought of that idea ever again being in their head, let alone upon their lips. You cannot defeat an idea, you can only make people determined to no longer entertain them, because of the memory of the war they fought with you over it, and the fear of the possibility of such a conflict ever happening again, is too painful to think about<br />
<br />
How do you kill an idea? By killing its hosts, and causing everyone else to fear and dread the thought of thinking it.<br />
<br />
Screw healing.<br />
<br />
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.<br />
<br />
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish noting more than to destroy that possibility.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3DtJAKAEFuM/W5e6G8C6g1I/AAAAAAAAZcE/bHkQK_fLbZ8zX0z8HaFwCCZ-ZF6DGyVKgCEwYBhgL/s1600/wtc54.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="640" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3DtJAKAEFuM/W5e6G8C6g1I/AAAAAAAAZcE/bHkQK_fLbZ8zX0z8HaFwCCZ-ZF6DGyVKgCEwYBhgL/s320/wtc54.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but it will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember.<br />
<br />
A proper foreign policy is "Mind your own business & we'll mind ours. Mess with us or ours, and we'll destroy you. Period."<br />
<br />
Anything less, reasoning with those who are unreasonable, giving measured responses in reply to savagery, etc., are concessions and only serve to enable those who wish us harm.<br />
<br />
Perhaps more than anything else, remember that forgetting how and why the attacks of 9-11 were made possible, guarantees that its horrors will be revisited upon us, courtesy of our willful inability to recognize their approach, and the cost of that will be history rhyming itself once again, as the <a href="http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm" target="_blank">Gods of the Copybook Headings</a> limp up to explain it once more:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,<br />
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.<br />
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.<br />
<br />
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn<br />
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:<br />
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,<br />
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.<br />
<br />
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,<br />
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,<br />
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come<br />
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.<br />
<br />
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,<br />
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;<br />
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;<br />
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.<br />
<br />
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.<br />
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.<br />
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"Stick to the Devil you know."</i> <br />
<br />
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life<br />
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)<br />
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"The Wages of Sin is Death."</i> <br />
<br />
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, <br />
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; <br />
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, <br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"If you don't work you die." </i><br />
<br />
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew<br />
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true<br />
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.<br />
<br />
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man<br />
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. <br />
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, <br />
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;<br />
<br />
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins<br />
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, <br />
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, <br />
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! <br />
</span></em></blockquote>
Please, try to remember 9/11 as the lesson we won't have to learn once more.<br />
<br />
Reality will not be denied, and Evil will not be turned aside because you choose to turn away from it. Deny that, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return. Please. Just face the facts and learn the lesson so we don't have to learn it once more.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tPE4Ms1bEE4/W5e6GpU9qMI/AAAAAAAAZcE/NrAUMf_H_2Muy5pVeAfCs4ua3dcpmYhZQCEwYBhgL/s1600/wtc-1wolfrom.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="771" height="251" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tPE4Ms1bEE4/W5e6GpU9qMI/AAAAAAAAZcE/NrAUMf_H_2Muy5pVeAfCs4ua3dcpmYhZQCEwYBhgL/s320/wtc-1wolfrom.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-86202901846181316512023-07-07T07:35:00.010-05:002023-07-15T14:45:41.527-05:00The Logical consequences of either caring about or ignoring 'What Is Truth?' - causality & its effects (g)Logic, which Aristotle developed upon his Metaphysics, and Analytics, guides us in how to use reason methodically in relation to what is real and true. The point is to methodically identify and eliminate contradictions from our assumptions and to show us where we need to flesh out the abstractions we haven't taken notice of. I won't attempt to go further into that here either, but keep in mind that being objective is not ignoring our subjective thoughts & feelings, it is grounding them in what is real and true. The substance of this, and of the preceding judgments, form the foundation of all Western thought, both Greco/Roman and Judeo/Christian (see especially<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+8-14&version=KJV" target="_blank"> Proverbs 8-14</a> for starters), which explicitly or implicitly rests upon them.
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
pt g: Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
<br /><br />
When we're able to understand that the subject of our thinking, conforms to that aspect of reality that is the object of our thoughts, we recognize that reality is intelligible to us and affirm our relation to what <i>is </i>real and true. That is <i>so </i>far from being a small thing. Metaphysics is the science of those first principles, and its role is not to play word games, but to put you in closer contact with and understanding of, what is real and true, and the life that recognizes, abides by, and resonates most with them, is a life that surer to be well worth living, than one who is ignorant of that.
<br /><br />
The person that is surprised and confused by the events of 'one damn thing after another', is living in a very different world from the person who has an understanding of the principles behind the causes of those things, and their own role in them.
<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6z5d3GcY2QrkYfullRoIKdHH2osV7BX0QUYPSGvxG7l8DC2aXwRpXQZV4vdCERy65Zkm-segplw066WX6GwiiysHGxX9ND5ZMLTaMhcUBPtx5sdbv23hb3ZsMwm6_WD9JdvsYu-pvKOaznksfl98BtYqLu1AIN0XNXLARx21NNzZgH66BBbzfHA/s900/Solzhenitsyn%20-%20Simple%20Courage.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6z5d3GcY2QrkYfullRoIKdHH2osV7BX0QUYPSGvxG7l8DC2aXwRpXQZV4vdCERy65Zkm-segplw066WX6GwiiysHGxX9ND5ZMLTaMhcUBPtx5sdbv23hb3ZsMwm6_WD9JdvsYu-pvKOaznksfl98BtYqLu1AIN0XNXLARx21NNzZgH66BBbzfHA/s320/Solzhenitsyn%20-%20Simple%20Courage.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The attention we give to metaphysical fundamentals, enables our thinking to become and remain firmly grounded in reality, and by respecting what can and cannot be known through it, our knowledge is able to lead to a wisdom that is rooted in what is real and true and worthy of knowing, and enables us to live lives that are worth living. That same ground is also a fertile one for developing a scientific understanding of what <i>is</i>, and how and why that understanding can best be utilized.
<br /><br />
The conscious attention to that 'Why' will lead you into ethical considerations of what you should and should not do, all of which presupposes a link between the thoughts and questions you're thinking them within, and about - AKA: <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/is-demonstrates-that-what-is.html" target="_blank">What Is Truth</a>.
<br /><br />
With that in mind, it's worth considering what telling or ignoring or living by lies, does to the very heart of yourself, and the life you are <i>in</i> reality living.
<!---->
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAntCMgvYzljJtQKiTb8xXV3M-LXUfOYC1tLWUiIy1trGDdD3kj5VaU3aEcZIxYTdLRYzz9E3f7DmNKZNwhnLaOijxIJ9dF92AUz-Dd9WDrWpbwOXXnfLTqVuhHdmT4esIPZNZsigbnE8zxw0b8PiK8RvvMJ_Y_8PfOMbHJ1OCHuzPrJoRKQE/s1200/Coughlin_Pieper-Sophists.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAntCMgvYzljJtQKiTb8xXV3M-LXUfOYC1tLWUiIy1trGDdD3kj5VaU3aEcZIxYTdLRYzz9E3f7DmNKZNwhnLaOijxIJ9dF92AUz-Dd9WDrWpbwOXXnfLTqVuhHdmT4esIPZNZsigbnE8zxw0b8PiK8RvvMJ_Y_8PfOMbHJ1OCHuzPrJoRKQE/s320/Coughlin_Pieper-Sophists.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Those who are arrayed against reality, whether the Sophists of 2,500 years ago (see the Socratic dialog: Gorgias), or the Woke of today, begin and center their attacks upon metaphysics, in order to separate our thoughts from what is real and true. As Josef Pieper put it in his excellent '<a href="https://archive.org/details/abuse-of-language-abuse-of-power-josef-pieper/page/34/mode/2up?q=fabricate">Abuse of Power - Abuse of Language</a>',
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“..."The sophists’’, he says, “‘fabricate a fictitious reality.”’ That the existential realm of man could be taken over by pseudorealities whose fictitious nature threatens to become indiscernible is truly a depressing thought. And yet this Platonic nightmare, I hold, possesses an alarming contemporary relevance. For the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language..."</span></em></blockquote>
Modernist propaganda aside, it's important to be mindful that the scientific method did <i>not</i> arise from Descartes' Method of Doubt - more often than not, once the clutter of doubt is brushed away from the <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm"> journals of actual scientists</a>, you find that it wasn't arrived at by faking arbitrary doubts (more often than not, those are what slowed them down), nor even from Francis Bacon's questionable effort to one-up Aristotle with his '<a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method" target="_blank">Great Instauration</a>', but through the careful application of good honest questions, many of which <a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10964/4/Aristotele.pdf">Aristotle had asked long before them</a>).
<br /><br />
What actually led to the first scientific experiments in modern times, as I <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2014/03/farewell-to-friend-doubtful-roots-of.html">noted here some time ago</a>, began centuries earlier, with two clergymen who were steeped in the philosophy and religion of Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian civilization. Beginning with Robert Grosseteste, followed later by Roger Bacon, between the 1100-1200's, who, believing that God's creation is good, and intelligible, and worth knowing, they judged that it would be worth the time to apply their metaphysical understanding of reality to the particulars of the world they found themselves within, both to further their understanding and appreciation of it, and in the belief that the practice would surely bring the types of benefits that predictably accompany a greater knowledge and understanding of what is real and true.
<br /><br />
Those first principles of methodical reasoning in conjunction with careful action, and the examination of the results, are what these two clergymen were the first to put into practice as proto-scientists, and as their methods were grasped, it guided and improved our knowledge and experience in such a way as to become the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Gy3Vp7TurVUC&lpg=PA437&ots=ESyrhiFIzI&dq=roger%20bacon%20scientific%20treatises&pg=PA282#v=onepage&q=roger%20bacon%20scientific%20treatises&f=false">general scientific method</a>, which has been summed up as,
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the manner in which he conducted his experiments in precise detail so that others could reproduce and independently test his results..."</span></em></blockquote>
, or for everyday use, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14474/pg14474.html">methodically questioning and verifying </a> the answers your questions logically lead you to. Rinse. Repeat.
<br /><br />
But always the point is to learn what is in reality true, to the degree the context warrants, and to do so by respecting what <i>is</i> true. To sum up,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>Reality is intelligible and available to us all, </li>
<li>What is in reality true, is true no matter who or how many wish to believe otherwise, </li>
<li>Through methodical reasoning, we are better able to understand and uncover what is true, and what is false,</li>
<li>Judgments can be shown to be objectively True, by how well they conform our subjective thoughts, to the object of reality, which enables them to be intelligibly communicated to others,</li>
<li>Metaphysics precedes and guides our reasoning, the logical method, and scientific fact, are dependent upon, and do not contradict, metaphysical truths</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
The reason for pointing all of this out, is that Modernity has been willfully attacking and denying every point - not by argument... at least not anymore, but instead by evasion and by force of lies, and that sequence has absolutely insinuated itself into every aspect of what is taught to our students in our schools today - and not just by the *Woke*. For that reason, we're going to chew up a good chunk of HTML in looking at how the floorboards of reality have been (pretended to be) torn up & out from under us, by the pharisees of modernity.
<br /><br />
Next up - Laundering the unreal through Epistemology.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-65462594716445922932023-07-07T07:35:00.008-05:002023-07-14T07:24:53.265-05:00Facts are only as stubborn as you are - causality & its effects (f)They say that '<i>Facts don't lie!</i>', which may be 'true enough', but it ignores the fact that neither do facts tell the truth, and those liars who understand how little people suspect that facts can be used to tell lies, arrange their selected facts and the context they are presented within, to lie all day long for them - or maybe you haven't heard the phrase 'Lies, damn lies, and statistics'? What gives you the power to perceive and understand when facts are being used to lie to you, is metaphysics in general, and causality in particular, and when they aren't properly attended to, we fall under the power of what is being left out of or excluded from our mind.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br />
pt f: Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
One thing that phrasing the is/ought question as Hume did (see <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html#causality-distortion">previous</a>) *accomplishes*, is to put your thoughts upon the path that the modernists now habitually travel, which is the means for getting away with asserting causeless causes, as they've done since following down the pathway of thinking that Descartes first put them on, and the effect that's had has been in reducing the pre-modern understanding of causation, down & away from the four open ended causes of Aristotle's approach, towards the two dead-ended materialistic 'answers', which are what make it exceedingly easier to fake facts, than it is to fake & violate principles.
<br /><br />
However counter-intuitive that may seem, you can check it for yourself by borrowing one from the playbook of our sophistical college professors:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>Is it easier to imagine flaming grass and ice that sinks, or married bachelors and four sided triangles?</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>
See what I mean? No?
<br /><br />
I'm betting that you had no problem imagining the fake facts of the first items - like ice sinking - than attempting to fake a concept and principle (or did you somehow visualize a four-sided triangle?). And if you continue on down that path, as college professors have been teaching their students to for well over a century, you quickly and easily begin not only incorporating the ability to fake facts as needed into your thinking, but the person who's (unwittingly) practiced at it, will find it the simplest of things to go along with the faking of observable facts (or perhaps you missed the whole '<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Masks are useless/You must wear masks!/No one forced anyone to wear masks' episode of the Covid years'</span></i>?).
<br /><br />
Well, without getting epistemologically ahead of ourselves (that's for future posts), what that question acquires its 'legitimacy' through, is the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/" target="_blank">Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy</a> (be <a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/analytic-synthetic-dichotomy/" target="_blank">very wary of it</a>), and it's been used as a key tool of professional Sophists (AKA: College Professors) for at least a century now, to get students to question, doubt, and abandon, what had been their deepest convictions, as well as their ability to understand and reasonably support their beliefs. The first thing to point out about it, is that the pose, that there is a 'Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy', is itself a lie. There's no such thing. What that is, is a single concept or fact or principle, juxtaposed with a composite of numerous other concepts, facts, and/or principles, with one or more falsehoods embedded into them, with which they then equivocate upon as if it were simply another individual fact/concept/principle.
<br /><br />
To be 'fair', the name and cursory description of 'Analytic/Synthetic' hints at that being what it is, the forming together of multiple concepts, facts, and/or principles, but that is admitted to only on the surface (surprise), and having cursorily said so, they go on to use the reference as a means of not only invalidating the composite concepts (which is what makes our ability to think so powerful), but as a means of separating you and your mind, from reality, and from that ultimate composite: Truth.
<br /><br />
Make no mistake, if you were to isolate the essentials of the false concept of ice sinking under normal contexts, that would be every bit as unimaginable as a four-sided triangle or an married bachelor (another favorite example of theirs), but by artfully phrasing it as they do, they get away with epstimecide ( to turn one of their own terms against them: the murder of sound thinking), as easy as pie.
<br /><br />
What a proper understanding and application of Aristotle's four causes would provide (and quickly expose and banish the Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy ploy), even with the more material matters, Ice, for instance, is a means of closely securing your conceptual understanding of a physical variable, to its identity, and how and why they behave as they do within a given context, and that attention to the relation between immaterial concept and physical reality to reveal the principles by which they are properly understood, which makes it logically difficult to arbitrarily treat them as ludicrous as imagining ice that sinks or a four-sided triangle. And when viewed in that light, the suggestion to use an invalid images, to guide legitimate reasoning, begins to reveal something disturbing in the request.
<br /><br />
By simply neglecting and ignoring that pre-modern approach to understanding what you know, your knowledge and thinking quickly becomes conceptually anorexic and incapable of facing up to the rigors of reality, and the conceptual muddle you are left with to take notice of, becomes painfully easy to populate your 'imagination' with appearances only, as if thinking were nothing more than a process for scribbling out mental cartoons, where one shape labeled 'ice', is able to 'sink' into other shapes labeled 'water', and in your absence of awareness of those facts, concepts, and principles that are and should be every bit as impossible to 'imagine' as a four-sided triangle, you and your mind becomes separated from what is real, and true, and beautiful, and right.
<br /><br />
Notice that this is not at all the same thing as engaging the imagination by asking listeners to imagine sinking ice or impossible geometry in the service of a story - not at all. That's not the case or the intent of the Sophist who'd request you to 'imagine' unimaginable falsehoods as legitimate standards and landmarks of an 'educated' mode of thinking; they do so as a means of destabilizing your ability to think coherently, with the intent to separate your understanding, from reality, so that the sophist can 'have their way' with you. By that means of drilling such an absence of true thinking into the thoughts in our modern minds, it becomes exceedingly easy to imagine even your own actions, as being the thoughtless reactions of a purely material body pinballing through the environment. In that scenario, your thinking is easily deformed into a manner where 'you' and your 'thoughts', become meaningless side-effects of that process, and in accepting that, modern minds find themselves easily taking the final step of denying what actually <i>is</i> materially causeless: Free Will, unaware that even the thought of 'you', has been taken from you.
<br /><br />
FWIW, that's not a process of 'enlightenment', but one of endarkenment. See The News, for further reference.
<br /><br />
If you aren't seeing how this issue of IS's & Oughts matters to your life, then consider how the modern and pre-modern views of human beings might affect your ability to live your life in society. Prior to modernity, the prudent person understood causation and the nature of being human well enough to seek to mitigate the volatility of choice & chance in society, through sound education, morality, and placing a high value on sound reasoning. OTOH, for the ideological person of modernity - of both the Left and Right - having philosophically removed 'Free Will' from the identity of human beings, it has become possible and appropriate for them to treat peoples as volatile substances whose reactive behaviors must be managed by 'those who know best', for 'the greater good'.
<br /><br />
By willfully blurring or ignoring those differences and limitations that are involved in asking '<i>what causes that?</i>', we're led to assume more (and less) than what can actually be known about both material and immaterial matters, which swerves us all further away from the company of Sophia, and into a more disreputable association with the Turtle Lady, and worse, those who prefer to pretend that their thoughts and doubts about how they think that reality should be, are more real and certain than what is in reality true.
<br /><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="317" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IQPsKvG6WMI" title="KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America (1984)" width="423"></iframe></div>
Once we begin to allow, or ignore, such sophistries being gotten away with, ever more choices become just as easily explained by, and blamed upon, the environment, and as nothing is or can be truly known in such a world as that, no one can be held responsible for anything, and anything goes. <i>That</i> is the substance and root of our modern state of Demoralization (see <a href="https://youtu.be/IQPsKvG6WMI?t=60">Yuri Bezmenov's interviews on this</a>), and there is no better way for those who desire power over a people, to attain it, than by having that people believe in what gives those who seek to impose their power upon them, a clear pathway to doing just that, and no clearer pathway is imaginable, than having those people believe that there is no right, no wrong, and no credible cause for believing that there is or should be such 'beliefs'.
<br /><br />
By having been armed with such metaphysical views, including this corruption of causality, statements such as these from <a href="https://robindiangelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Anti-racism-handout-1-page-2016.pdf">the guru of 'white fragility', Robin Diangelo</a>, 'make sense' to those thinking their thoughts with those habits and beliefs:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>"...
<li>All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions; intentions are irrelevant.</li>
<li> No one here chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral – to not act against racism is to support racism.</li>
<li>Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done</li>
<li><b>The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?</b>...</li>”
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
One lesson that we can and should learn from this, is that the more we know about what the identity of something <i>is</i> - is that an orange billiard ball, or an orange, or an egg that's been dyed orange - the more we are able to know about how such objects will interact in relation to, or collision with, each other. But just as importantly, the more you realize what you don't <i>actually</i> know, the more likely it is that you will be better able to understand what you <i>do </i>know, and so won't end up with egg on your face when everyone else finds out that you didn't actually know, what you only thought you knew. What a familiarity with metaphysics promotes, is the mindset that what <i>is</i>, is real, and that what you imagine reality <i>might</i> be, should not be mistaken for being what it actually is.
<br /><br />
Given how this has developed in modernity, it's important to add that the knowledge we have of the nature and causes of such matters, goes deeper than those sequential occurrences which might 'cause' us to associate one event, with another, because they occurred in sequence (ala <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-getting-to-root-of.html" target="_blank">David Hume's assertions about and the sun rising in the day following night</a> or billiard balls rolling after being struck).
<br /><br />
For now, I'll close with a reminder that Metaphysics is about paying attention to what it is you are thinking about, and with, and noting distinctions that bring clarity to your thought and understanding, and there are dire and deadly consequences that are caused by habitually ignoring the nature of causation and the variety of causes in our lives, I've already<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-culture-of-shrieking-about-mass.html"> gone into here</a>. You don't need to become a scientist or a philosopher to study metaphysics, but if you want to have a better and more complete understanding of what is going on around you, or of what is sweeping you away through your ignorance of it, you should develop a basic understanding of the subject.
<br /><br />
The human mind which you are graced with, is far too powerful for you to remain safely ignorant of its identity, causes, and effects, and after all, with great power comes great responsibility, right?Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-73670725884929068542023-07-07T07:34:00.007-05:002023-10-24T21:59:40.561-05:00Distracting You With What Isn't Actually There - causality & its effects (e)
There are a few key 'Tell's that sophistical ploys typically announce themselves with, and they all more or less depend upon the listener's shallow understanding of causation, so as to more easily direct their attention away from what a deeper understanding might quickly identify as being but empty words:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>First: a sensational claim is made that's corrosive to what you believe to be true (amplified by the listener's ignorance of the nature of what's being considered);</li>
<li>Second, the absence of any actual new knowledge being offered in exchange for what is to be disbelieved, only doubt upon still more arbitrary doubts, and</li>
<li>Third, the assurance that accepting the Sophist's own belief in doubt, will lead you to an unspecified 'better' understanding of... something... or other... and solutions that urge you to <i>'support this'!</i></li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br />
pt e: Distracting you with...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
Of course that could play out, as it has, in everything from the last six decades of "<i><a href="https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/" target="_blank">The world as we know it will end in a decade!</a></i>", to the trans-gendering mutilationists:"<i>No, we can't define what a woman is, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11734551/St-Louis-trans-clinic-investigated-harming-600-teens.html" target="_blank">but would you rather have a dead son, or a live daughter?</a></i>", to any of the DEI of '<i>Addressing Systemic Racism requires employing racist AF policies!</i>' (<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-06-29/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions">way to go Supreme Court!</a>).
<br /><br />
How we got to the point where such considerations would be easily, even routinely, disregarded, and have sophistries be seen as being 'legitimate', is worth looking into (a deep dive in coming posts on Epistemology), but it shouldn't be too surprising that the first step in that process began, as it had to, by discarding the pre-modern understanding of metaphysics, and its attention to identity and the necessity of making distinctions, which enables you to expose and discard contradictions from your thinking.
<br /><br />
As with most of the absurdities of modernity, that process began taking shape with <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/unknown-conspiracies-you-dont-think.html" target="_blank">Rene Descartes</a> (with an assist <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-justice-two-mis-states-of.html" target="_blank">from Hobbes</a>) and his blatantly arbitrary '<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm" target="_blank">method of doubt</a>', and along with that came his idea of mind/body dualism, which necessarily asserted that a human being is but a meat machine, which the mind 'somehow' causes to move about from within it. How it was that a substance-less thought of 'mind' was somehow able to cause your physical muscles to flex and strike a match to light a candle, was, according to Descartes, accomplished by <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/" target="_blank">the Pineal gland</a>. How? Somehow. Why? Because reasons ("<i>don't doubt him!" </i>Ahem).
<br /><br />
Of course, eventually those who followed after Descartes did begin to doubt that the Pineal gland could be 'the answer' for how immaterial thoughts could affect physical reality, but that was because its actual identity was never part of the equation, only what 'could be' arbitrarily doubted <i>into</i> consideration - this is a key point that's too often missed.
<br /><br />
Accepting the advice to 'Doubt everything!', makes it as easy to arbitrarily doubt something both out of, as into, existence, as it requires no more substantive reasoning to claim that '<i>I doubt the Pineal gland does any of this stuff!</i>', than to say '<i>I doubt that the Pineal gland isn't central to this stuff!</i>', and the reality is that the reality of what the Pineal gland was, its Identity, <i>was not</i> the point of the exercise; what could be 'doubted' into the popular narrative, was, and <i>is</i>. The acceptance of causeless Doubt, surreptitiously elevates, legitimizes, and inserts the habit of arbitrariness <i>into the essence of your thinking</i>, and reduces the conception of a whole Truth, to a shard of splintered facts, and in doing so it forms and conveys an (irrational) illusion that your thoughts have power over reality itself.
<br /><br />
It's worth noting that 'Arbitrary' means without basis, and without regard to what is true, or false, or completely contradictory (and fully opposed to Aristotle's 1st Law of Thought, the law of contradiction). Developing the habit of raising and accepting arbitrary doubts as key to your method of thinking, can just as easily lead people to skepticism, as to unfounded beliefs, precisely because that acceptance severs the habit of relating your thoughts to reality.
<br /><br />
Once a person begins employing the sophistical 'Critical Dialectic', fully arbitrary justifications are offered as sufficient 'cause' for whenever and wherever the sophist feels the necessity of them, serving to further their purposes and further thwart whatever grip on reality that might still remain, as well as a forced pretense of certainty that they couldn't possibly be wrong. This is reflected in what I see as a signature distinction between the moderns and the pre-moderns, and we can see an example of it, in that where Issac Newton had affirmed his willingness to observe and measure the effects of Gravity, even though he didn't understand it, and he would not pretend to know what it was or how it operated, while in a full reversal of that, most moderns, such as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Bentham, have stridently doubted and denied the existence of observable realities such as Free Will (despite every human being having a continuous first hand empirical knowledge & experience of), because they couldn't explain how it <i>could</i> operate, and so they therefore concluded, rather pridefully, that it <i>did not</i> in fact exist.
<br /><br />
Another distinguishing feature which separates people of modern times, from the pre-moderns, is the rise of indecision, faithlessness, and anxiety at the core of the modern mind, which, IMHO, is an unsurprising reflection of continually feeling that what you see as being important information and beliefs, are continually subject to arbitrarily being revised, denied, and 'canceled'. And yet, oddly enough, it's common for modernists to presume that 'reality' is the problem, and <i>not</i> their conception of it - they will routinely assert that their ideas trump reality.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIM_y0p_iaWN5WV6NTaWwzUp8hXJxPo2xjiB6UEE0StEjC2bh0r8ZuJrTECNPSY-1nimNFlcudDTChdGGwjuCv0PQFBo2E8H3hfS1zdIfouIMJprYKIytEneM1MQa4RZ4p0tNEOItOjlGmfXF0RortZmjnvxW2fIp2gmWQwTY5N4sD5kIT1J19Aw/s556/Davila-PersonCausalSeries.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="264" data-original-width="556" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIM_y0p_iaWN5WV6NTaWwzUp8hXJxPo2xjiB6UEE0StEjC2bh0r8ZuJrTECNPSY-1nimNFlcudDTChdGGwjuCv0PQFBo2E8H3hfS1zdIfouIMJprYKIytEneM1MQa4RZ4p0tNEOItOjlGmfXF0RortZmjnvxW2fIp2gmWQwTY5N4sD5kIT1J19Aw/s320/Davila-PersonCausalSeries.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Even the Empiricists, who saw themselves as the rational arm of the enlightenment, and who doubted Descartes' rationalist conclusions, continued to employ his methods, and so gravitated towards the notion that <i>all</i> of our actions and apparent 'choices' are and must be reducible to a physical chain of material causes & effects that are triggered by external environmental circumstances - a necessary consequence of having concluded that Free Will <i>must be</i> only an illusion,
<br /><br />
Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's bulldog, the grandfather of 'Brave New World's author, Aldous Huxley) asserted that our thoughts are less like motive powers, than like the whistle on a steam powered train, contributing nothing to it's power and motion, other than as noise added onto its exhaust. It should be no surprise that in such mechanistic and deterministic views, the role of govt and schools are expected to be used to form an environment around you that is suitable to how they need you to behave, and to keep you, useful little widget that you are, on track towards their idea of the 'greater good'.
<br /><br />
What <a href="http://don-colacho.blogspot.com/2011/01/2644.html">Nicolás Gómez Dávila</a> said with "<i>The permanent possibility of initiating causal series is what we call a person.</i>", should be kept in mind with sophists whose dialectic is so focused upon denying that we can have knowledge of causality, and that Free Will is a dillusion, and even that the 'Self', is a delusion. If that's not clear enough, obfuscating or denying causality, is a means of eliminating the irritant to the state of 'individual rights', and a Constitution devised to uphold and protect them.
<br /><br />
When the ploys of these dialectics come your way, whether it be the denial of Free Will, or that solid objects are only illusions, one question to ask yourself when their sensational statements cause you to pause and think, would the identity and telos of that direction they're <i>intending</i> to take your thinking in - are they informing, or deforming, your thoughts? And what would you need to already know, in order to know that (<i>psst!</i> That's Metaphysics)? Whether that which they are proposing to drive your thinking with from there on out, is rooted in sound causes (of what are real and true), or a fuzzy causelessness (everything from '<i>your truth may not be their truth</i>' to '<i>a more diverse people and sustainable future</i>'), is an extremely important distinction to make, as is knowing how, and how not, to make it.
<br /><br />
<b><a id="causality-distortion">Causality and the distorting of it</a></b><br />
Do we understand Causation better today, than in Aristotle's day? Well, yes, and no, as we are <i>able</i> to understand more about causation today, than in Aristotle's day, afterall, even for all he knew of physics, biology, logic, rhetoric, ethics and politics, he had no understanding of individual rights in the sense that we do, and little of the idea of equality before the law, because the thought that all human beings are created equally human, and that no one is a lesser human because of the circumstance of birth, race, ethnicity, or wealth, was unknown to them. The idea that <i>all men are created equal</i> was unheard of in Aristotle's day, it took the Judeo-Christian half, to reveal that truth to the Greco-Roman half, of our Western world.
<br /><br />
Similarly on the material side of causation, whereas what was known prior to modernity was only what could be observed on the surface, and they could only speculate about what lay beyond that, today we've developed a more detailed knowledge and scientific understanding of the chemical and molecular nature of the world around us, which penetrates past surface appearances to reveal the hidden structures of characteristics that make a thing like metal, metalic, while also explaining why both hardness and melting are fully consistent with the nature of being a metal.
<br /><br />
And yet for all that, with the hierarchical understanding of the forms of knowledge they had (Empeiría/Epistemé, Tékhne, and Sophia), they had a better understanding on the whole, of the little that they knew, than most of us have today (especially the 'educated'), as knowledge itself has been collapsed by modernity, into a semi-empirical mush.
<br /><br />
So while we are <i>able </i>to know and 'know thyself' more thoroughly than pre-moderns like Aristotle could, most of '<i>those who know best</i>' in modernity, have actively evaded, denied, and even denigrated, what the pre-moderns understood about Metaphysics in general and about Identity and Causality in particular, without which a person cannot properly understand what they should. Fortunately, the only real power the moderns have over any of us, is our remaining ignorant of that understanding which they've discarded, and so while we today are still <i>able</i> to understand and penetrate deeper into the nature of the world around us, and into the Logos (a broader understanding of Reason, than the moderns ascribe to 'reason') within, than at any time in the past - we only need to be willing to see what there is to see, IOW, will you continue on with the causal Blue Pill you were fed in school, or choose to take the Red Pill?
<br /><br />
To see how distorted our understanding of causality has become, we need to be clear on what causality does and does not entail, for despite surface appearances, it would be wrong to say that certainty is the measure of Casuality (though that is a common ploy for impugning our understanding of it), for while we can predict with certainty that applying sufficient heat to metal will cause it to melt, and with a lesser degree of certainty that stating that 'there are only two genders' will cause a Woke person to meltdown, we can only calculate the probability of being able to cause the result desired from the Quantum realm's waves and particles and Schrodinger's boxes seemingly full of cats that are both living and dead, even so, it would be wrong to say that our understanding of Causality is affected by those varying degrees of certainty, or to assume that those differences indicate that Casuality operates any differently in the material, human, or quantum, realms.
<br /><br />
Casuality is not about making predictions, it is about recognizing the importance of identifying what you are considering, so as to properly integrate that within the forms of knowledge involved within a given context. It is of course true that with sound knowledge, we're often able to make a number of accurate predictions, but causality will not provide us with either the omniscience or absolute certainty, which have no part of the identity of being human. And yet as we'll see, it has been by treating Causality in modernity as if it could provide such abilities, or by presuming that lacking those abilities somehow invalidates or diminishes what we as human beings can know, which has played a large role in undermining our understanding of Causality, of Identity, of Metaphysics, Knowledge, and our ability to 'know thyself'.
<br /><br />
Again and again in modernity, our ability to understand has been assaulted by denying or ignoring what can be understood, while dropping the relevant contexts, in order to evade what we <i>should</i> know, to plant false expectations of what we <i>can</i> know, and to dissuade us from looking for what <i>is</i> real and true, in order to 'legitimize' any number of heinous fictions that require treating human beings as deterministic meat puppets, into popular belief.
<br /><br />
What we do not know, and what we cannot know, does not invalidate what we <i>do</i> know, within the context of what we <i>can</i> understand, and while further developments of our knowledge will likely reveal additional distinctions and contexts for us to consider and anticipate, it won't diminish what we already understand about the causes behind them, or how to apply that to our understanding here on the human level of reality, both materially, and immaterially.
<br /><br />
Casuality reflects and confirms the identity and telos of what we are considering within a given context, affirming that Casuality is identity in action, and interaction, no matter whether what is being examined is animate, or inanimate.
<br /><br />
Why all of this matters outside of lecture halls, is that there's no basis for understanding and respecting a person's ability and need to think and make choices, without a grounding in metaphysics in general and causality in particular, for without that a person has little basis for understanding and defending an individuals inalienable rights, or the importance of their society upholding and defending those for all.
<br /><br />
The central drama in our regressing to the illiberal state of affairs we find ourselves in today, was formed from the notions that were proposed by the very modernist Enlightenment-age skeptic, David Hume, who believed, despite believing that nothing can be known, that he could confidently explain exactly how he knew that the cause of causation was all an illusion (a veritable harvest of contradictions are always sure to follow in the wake of skeptics who don't just <i>question</i> what is and can be known, but unironically claim to <i>know</i> that nothing can be known).
<br /><br />
Those foundations of The West that Descartes began fracturing, Hume began the process of shaking them down to the ground (where we are nearly at today), by declaring that we don't and can't really know anything about Causality at all, that we don't actually know how and why the sun rises, or even what causes one billiard ball to roll when hit by another, and so on, worser & worser.
<br /><br /><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm#link2H_4_0026" target="_blank">According to Hume</a>, what we thought we knew, was nothing more than a matter of playing the odds from what preceded and followed the occurrence of something yesterday, would probably do so again tomorrow. IOW: Those events we know of as sunrise, noon, and sunset, are simply events that just happen to follow each after other, and have nothing to do with what we think we know of and about them, and although probability says they'll happen in the same order, we don't know that for certain, and they could easily happen in reverse, or entirely out of order. You see, our knowledge then, is but a scheme of statistics and odds making (of what, he doesn't say, as he cherry picks and discards which bits of understanding is convenient to the reality he just knows we don't know of), was what Hume declared to be '<i>Science!</i>', and a great many in modernity agreed, and still agree, with that.
<br /><br />
Hume of course took the implications of that further than our inability to know what causes the sun to rise, in that if we can't know what causes <i>those</i> appearances, what can we possibly know about what causes humans to behave as we do? And by reducing science to statistics, what isn't measurable and quantifiable, isn't science (you may recall that measurability is a necessary, though lesser part (Empeiría), of what Science (Epistemé) <i>is</i>), and if it isn't Science well then, it's of no cause or value at all (good news for Neil deGrasse Tyson, bad news for religion, art & music). The fulcrum of this notion, which he uses to pry our minds apart from reality, rests on the observation that a thing or event, is not the same as our evaluation of it - IOW 'identifying' that this liquid is poison, is a different thing from identifying this liquid as bad - and soOooo, if they aren't the same, how can two identifications refer to the same thing? He's serious about that. He <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm#link2H_4_0085" target="_blank">goes on to say</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. ..."</span></em></blockquote>
At this point I'll urge you to review the three types of knowledge in a previous post, for the fact that Hume is equivocating upon different forms of knowledge to reduce the entire hierarchy of knowledge, to its flattest factoid, and you can rest assured that by allowing the littlest bit of that to slip by you, it will eventually lead in a straight line from there to the chaotic avalanche that besets us today with the physical mutilation of children being excused as 'gender affirming care'.
<br /><br />
Once you've allowed causation to be equivocated down to the flattest of facts, the fact that what 'ought' to result from a cause upon inanimate objects is all too easily ignored, and isn't determined in the same way that it is for animate objects, such as people. You might object that metal has no choice in responding to heat, while the human being most definitely does, but Hume had a way around that difference, as for you to be able to know anything at all about causality, you must be a you, and that too Hume denied, saying that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement..." </span></em></blockquote>
IOW, there is no 'you' to object to this, only a bundle of physical impressions, an illusion. And with no 'you' in mind to mind, how could a bundle of sensations possibly be able to convert sensory data, into the immaterial fictions of 'moral qualities'? This was what his infamous 'is-ought question demanded, asking:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'Does an IS, imply an Ought?'</span></em></blockquote>
IOW, how can a material fact of what IS, a provocation for instance, imply an immaterial response that ought to happen? Well then, he 'reasoned', since a material thing can't be an immaterial 'ought', then clearly an IS cannot imply an Ought, and so there is no basis for reasoning about manners, civility, or ethics, as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"reason is, and ought only to be the slave to the passions"</span></em></blockquote>
, 'proving' again that we don't <i>really </i>know anything about anything at all, and all of our supposed knowledge is but the result of passions and happenstance, and your saying that you know what will result from any cause, can be nothing more than a rolling of the dice and bookies playing the odds on what score they turn up.
<br /><br />
Of course, although you might want to point out that his saying that 'You ought not say that an is implies an ought', <i>is </i>saying that <i>an IS implies an Ought</i>, but... if you've ceded the ability to say what <i>IS</i>, you certainly cannot say what ought to follow from that. Do you see how slippery this slope soon gets? All of metaphysics - identity, knowledge, causality - are eliminated through Hume's kill shot (if you accept and permit it). Once you allow the connection between truth and reality to be severed, or even frayed, you've let go of your ability to claim to know anything at all, or to claim any interest in or concern with truth or goodness, or beauty. Gone. <i>Wfft</i>. As with your credibility in saying that this, might lead to that, and therefore <i>you ought not to permit it</i>. All gone.
<br /><br />
To come at the problem from another direction, the necessity of his denial of Free Will, is that his own is-ought issue is the wrong question; or rather it is a misdirection, which deliberately ignores the identity of a human being, and leads the listener away from grasping that the reality of human life, is that the question if asked at all, ought to be asked more like this:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'Does an IS, imply Ought<b><i><u>s</u></i></b>?' </span></em></blockquote>
, plural, and the answer to <i>that</i> is an unequivocal and hearty '<i>Yes!</i>', but that can only be said if you know what is, and know how you know it, and what causes anything to occur in accordance with what you know of it.
<br /><br />
Despite how Hume and modernity's attack our ability to know anything at all, with our inability to be free from error, it's not a failure for society or any individual in it to lack omniscient and unerring 'knowledge', rather recognizing that in us all, is a sign of having successfully identified ourselves as being human! While on the purely material level (which, you'll remember, is what science provides us the lowest level Knowledge of), an 'IS' does imply an 'Ought' - heating bronze to xDegrees ought to result in its melting, its material identity provides for only that reaction - but the possibilities of which 'Ought' to result from provoking a human being, whose very different identity and knowledge isn't constrained or determined in the same manner as metal is necessarily determined to respond to heat. Instead, based upon the knowledge and understanding of the person involved, and the context the provocation is posed within, there are some, sometimes many, responses that a person ought to make in response to an IS, and they might choose from those, or originate something entirely new and previously not considered, not as a result of happenstance, but from reasoning.
<br /><br />
That is one of the consequences of being human, but Hume's skepticism had blinded himself to that identity, and that right there, between necessity and possibility, lies what the materialist hates and fears the most: Choice and Chance.
<br /><br />
The modern materialist evades and abhors chance and choice, and however harmful it will be to their own selves, they will adamantly assert that for human beings '<i>an IS doesn't imply an Ought</i>!', which is a half-truth (AKA: a full lie), whose abuse of truth has been highly causal in the philosophical disintegration, anxiety, and soph-destruction, we are drowning in today.
<br /><br />
Denying and evading the full understanding of what the pre-moderns knew, which the modernist places safely out of mind, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-getting-to-root-of.html"> Hume advised:</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion..."</span></em></blockquote>
, that this was an egregious act of sophistry kant be denied, and by awakening Immanuel Kant from his 'dogmatic slumbers' - less to disagree with Hume, than to obfuscate the implications of what he'd claimed (more on that later), Hume's ideas fanned the smoldering embers of modernity into breaking out into the philosophical firestorms that were soon to be ignited by Kant, Fichte, Hegel and Marx, and which we're still dealing with today.
<br /><br />
When a society lacks a solid grasp of metaphysics in general, and identity, knowledge, and causality in particular, then skepticism (causeless doubt and/or denial of knowledge) rushes into the vacuum of popular imagination, and for those skeptics amongst them to preserve their skepticism (and oh will they ever fight to do that), they will evade, deny, denigrate, and claim the need to treat human beings as only a slightly higher form of inanimate matter, having no choice or rights that need to be respected, so that those who (somehow) see themselves as being those who *know* best, will be empowered to 'perfect' the lesser folk for 'the greater good'.
<br /><br />
Ironically, to know anything of causality, or even to be able to deny such knowledge, requires making the <i>choice </i>to understand or evade it - Free Will must exist in order to <i>deny</i> the existence of Free Will - and yet most of modernity, especially the post-modernists, deny and evade it. It requires the deliberately chosen denial of Free Will, to successfully deny reality. And whether admitted or denied, we are <i>able </i>to understand, materially and philosophically, that causation is the result of the deepest identity of what something <i>is</i>, and that 'change' is what results from being in sufficient proximity with what something else <i>is</i>.
<br /><br />
IOW, Causation <i>is</i> Identity in action (and interaction), and because we are human beings we are able to choose to understand that. But of course, we're also able to choose to evade and deny that, and for those who choose to seek power over their fellows, you need to deny and lie about what everyone can clearly see is true - which is easier than you might think.
<br /><br />Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-79947504286831933872023-07-07T07:33:00.007-05:002023-07-11T07:48:01.370-05:00Causation Squared - causality & its effects (d)To gain a better understanding of what is happening around us, we need to make better distinctions about what underlies - causes - those events, in order to foresee where they are likely to be leading us. Doing so enables us to better understand, predict, and conform, to the reality of the world around and within us. Aristotle developed his <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau"> Four Causes</a> after long years of pointedly observing the world around him, seeking after and discovering the causes behind what would become our sciences, ethics, politics, literature, he found that by seeking to make more detailed distinctions regarding whatever it was he was considering, took him beyond the surface distractions of only material 'cause and effect', to penetrate deeper into what it was that he was observing, what brought it about, and so become able to see more clearly where that was leading to. He broke those distinctions down into these steps, the Four Causes:
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
pt d: Causation Squared...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li>the <b>Material Cause</b>: “that out of which”, e.g., bronze is what a statue is made out of.</li>
<li>the <b>Formal Cause</b>: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.</li>
<li>the <b>Efficient Cause</b>: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.</li>
<li>the <b>Final Cause</b>: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, or that health is the end that's being aimed at by walking, losing weight, medicine, and surgical tools; e.g., or that to enhance a park setting is why a bronze statue is commissioned for a place in it; </li>
</ol></span></blockquote>
While I'll understand if you don't care much for what causes a bronze statue to be produced, by developing the habit of looking deeper into the nature of causation than only the shallowest of surface appearances, you'll be more aware of where you are in the world, more informed about what it is you are observing, and less mystified about what's going on around you - in short, an attention to causation, causes you to have a more thorough understanding of what truly does matter to you.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI7drglVt9MWIH2fNkDUB0l_Mx_K1QPBiNMn2dWT7MMXHcx7y-vXES8bQkZmj9f_fgoq9FDjfRufXKnfhC3yGdWAcA4emhhOaIBwS1LYyJtfS1UoAD0fNn-z_asRnAs0Ex866VVqr1QZg4EVHYJwWqH5C7cNlNoRaz8v78Tz-2LcUbEhxNv4C0_Q/s1251/Aristotle_FourCauses.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="709" data-original-width="1251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI7drglVt9MWIH2fNkDUB0l_Mx_K1QPBiNMn2dWT7MMXHcx7y-vXES8bQkZmj9f_fgoq9FDjfRufXKnfhC3yGdWAcA4emhhOaIBwS1LYyJtfS1UoAD0fNn-z_asRnAs0Ex866VVqr1QZg4EVHYJwWqH5C7cNlNoRaz8v78Tz-2LcUbEhxNv4C0_Q/s320/Aristotle_FourCauses.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Taking a little closer look at the Four Causes:<br />
<li>1st <b>Material Cause</b> begins with 'that out of which' the issue in question comes to be - be mindful of what it <i>is</i> that you are considering, and how does the identity of that impact the overall cause and resulting effects being considered? This first level of causation is what moderns often minimize and ignore, at least partly because separating your thoughts from Identity, 'frees' a person from the responsibility of considering the inevitable consequences of that knowledge. Conversely, paying closer attention to it, can reveal everything from the nature of Bronze, to the ramifications of an entire philosophy</li><br />
<li>2nd <b>Formal Cause</b>, 'the form' of what's being considered - what is giving shape to the cause being considered, and how deeply should you consider that form, in relation to its function? A statue's form might be a human form, but the difference between what results in a Five & Dime store mannequin, or Michaelangelo's David, is how deeply the subject's form has been considered</li><br />
<li>3rd the <b>Efficient Cause</b>, where “the primary source of the change or rest” - in the case of a statue, that is likely the sculptor, but what if you're looking for the efficient cause of something less obvious, such as of America for instance, where in the materialist view answering either '1776' or '1619' might get you a passing score on an utterly worthless test, both such answers would utterly fail to even point towards an understanding of the cause in question. Coming at the cause in question by employing Aristotle's view, would encourage and lead towards a much deeper understanding of what it is that you're trying to understand the cause of. To understand the cause of something, it's important to not allow a quick 'answer' to put a premature end to considering 'what brought this about'.</li><br />
<li>4th the <b>Final Cause</b>, 'the end being sought', the Telos, the Goal - is not limited to the immediate end or physical effect of something, but is enlarged by what you seek to conceptually understand of what is being brought about by it - not just What, but Why. While a final cause might begin with the 'What' of '<i>a statue was needed for decoration</i>', looking for the 'Why' of a cause, encourages us to look further than the shallow surface answer, and enables us to make greater distinctions about what is being brought about by the object under consideration. For instance, the final cause behind putting a statue of George Washington in a park, might be to provide the park setting with a decoration that will bring into the minds of those visiting there, a consideration of the ideals and virtues embodied by the 'Indispensable Man' of the American revolution, and the principles he fought to have our nation founded upon.</li><br />
Properly considering the 'Four Causes' of something that is happening, or that you want to happen, is a fruitful means of not only gaining a better understanding of what has happened, or is happening, but the habit is excellent practice for how to 'reverse engineer' what you observe, better equipping you to plan for what you want to cause to occur, as the better you understand a single step, the better you'll understand the preceding and succeeding steps. Where the modernist approach would be a disintegrated 'the ends justify the means' approach, Aristotle's Four Causes leads you into a deeper understanding of what is being accomplished, and why, and how each step does, and should, relate to and follow from all of the others.
<br /><br />
It's well worth noting that Thomas Aquinas added an additional level of depth to the four causes that Aristotle had identified, with a fifth cause:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">5. the <b><a href="https://www.academia.edu/9966058/Exemplar_Causality">Exemplary Cause</a></b>: a step beyond the Final Cause of action and Will, the Exemplary Cause is what guides the intellect - the idea that caused someone to decide that a statue was needed in the park, and so hired the sculptor,</span></blockquote>
<li>5th the <b>Exemplary Cause</b> then, “what guides the intellect ”, is taking note of not only what you are observing, or planning, but giving due attention to a higher level purpose beyond the features that are immediately visible, and in the case of what caused a statue of George Washington to be put up in a park, the exemplary cause might be the care and commitment of a person or group, to the health and prosperity of their community, and nation.</li><br />
The materialistic views which animate the modern views of scientism, focus almost exclusively on only surface aspects of the middle two of Aristotle's Four Causes, gathering primarily disintegrated facts, and (easily manipulated) observations of immediate stimulus/response, cause & effect, which not surprisingly tends to exclude metaphysics in general, and causality in particular, from popular consideration.
<br /><br />
Consider how the two approaches might be applied to something as simple as what causes a duck to swim for breadcrumbs tossed onto a pond:<br /><br />
<li>A likely materialistic cause & effect, and response to Why the duck swims for breadcrumbs:</li>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li><b>Cause</b>: Breadcrumbs stimulate a duck's eating reflex</li>
<li><b>Effect</b>: The duck moves to eat the breadcrumbs</li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
No further response follows, but presumably, if you'd like to see the duck swim more... toss more crumbs.
<br /><br />
<li>Looking for the Four Causes behind that same scenario, might be seen as:</li>
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li><b>the Material Cause</b>: a Duck, that which swims to the bread</li>
<li>the <b>Formal Cause</b>: The features of the duck's body, such as it's webbed feet which enable the duck to swim.</li>
<li>the <b>Efficient Cause</b>: Tossing breadcrumbs into the water, is where the duck is swimming to</li>
<li>the <b>Final Cause</b>: Eating the Breadcrumbs - eating the breadcrumbs is the ducks goal, and yours, which is what the preceding causes lead up to</li>
<li>the <b>Exemplary Cause</b>: The delight which you, or your child, takes in feeding the duck and the leisurely enjoyment & relaxation of the moment</li>
</ol></span></blockquote>
Where the modernist materialistic approach has little interest in, or ability to, expand upon what's involved in feeding a duck, the four causes approach leads to a more thorough consideration of even simple events, and each of those causes could easily be expanded upon and pursued into further depths of biology, nutrition, ethics, and even a consideration of human nature and leisure.
<br /><br />
It's not difficult to imagine how differently those two approaches might play out upon a more significant scenario, such as that of the woman who was recently beaten on her doorstep when a riot recently 'broke out' in Chicago. The modernist approach is all too familiar and frequently repeated in the news media:
<br /><br />
<li>A likely materialistic cause & effect, and response, to a woman having been beaten by rioting youths:</li>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li><b>Cause</b>: White Privilege</li>
<li><b>Effect</b>: Youths express their dissatisfaction to systemic racism</li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
, and as to the all too familiar response that might be expected to follow from such an understanding of causality:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li><b>Response</b>: Additional DEI policies, teaching training, and outreach programs for disaffected youth</li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
<li>OTOH, what might be expected from an <b>Aristotelian Four Causes </b> approach to looking for relevant causes reflecting the reality behind a woman being beaten by rioting youths, is that before even beginning, it'd be obvious that the 'Youths', or 'poor Youths', or 'black youths', is an entirely inadequate starting point, as many, most youths, regardless of color, don't riot upon women in doorways, and looking for causation would require beginning with what sets apart - identifies - other youths, from these youths who rioted?</li><br />
<blockquote><em><span><ol>
<li style="font-size: 85%;">the <b>Material Cause</b>: Youths who have little or no respect for strangers as fellow human beings</li>
<li style="font-size: 85%;">the <b>Formal Cause</b>: Man's natural savagery had not been mitigated by being taught right from wrong, self respect, civility, or manners,</li>
<li style="font-size: 85%;">the <b>Efficient Cause</b>: Schools and school boards promoting policies of restorative justice, rather than teaching what needs to be understood in order for youths to be intelligent and moral people who're capable of living a life worth living in peaceful society with others,</li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">the </span><b style="font-size: 85%;">Final </b><span style="font-size: 13.6px;"><b>Cause: 'Education</b></span><span style="font-size: 85%;">' which does not educate, but instead promotes anti-American & anti-Western ideology</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">the </span><b style="font-size: 85%;">Exemplary </b><span style="font-size: 13.6px;"><b>Cause: Colleges</b></span><span style="font-size: 85%;"> committed to teaching an ignorance of objective truth and the dangers of contradictory and disintegrated thinking, largely inspired by appealing to ideological ideals that "...Call into question the very foundations of the liberal order..." so as to bring about an end to America and the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian West."</span></li>
</ol></span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMKtGaJl7Q8Sa6lYZZSLq1WUjtjiKdsqbES2VDtCOPbDwj8dWS88B5Oriy2Hh8rjj-ETOiN8JDW0glLiWnFVwKWIpmpLWkGaGurA8qMcOOlrrx_YnXheWfuIEkK4qu6UYdE04ZFTJp7xLkGvrqzLThwzMtMZmelIwM2aAdAx_Ocd1imvPL7bDWfA/s1262/America_FourCauses.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="728" data-original-width="1262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMKtGaJl7Q8Sa6lYZZSLq1WUjtjiKdsqbES2VDtCOPbDwj8dWS88B5Oriy2Hh8rjj-ETOiN8JDW0glLiWnFVwKWIpmpLWkGaGurA8qMcOOlrrx_YnXheWfuIEkK4qu6UYdE04ZFTJp7xLkGvrqzLThwzMtMZmelIwM2aAdAx_Ocd1imvPL7bDWfA/s320/America_FourCauses.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
What causes the modernist approach, begins with considering what it is that they believe is being referred to by causation - (material cause) modernists fundamentally assume and presume that there are no <i>real</i> causes to anything beyond the material actions they can measure, and believing that there is no real meaning to anything, human life is believed at best as being about making the best of '<i>one damn thing after another</i>', they (formal cause) have no expectation of developing a deeper understanding of what is meaningful in life - that's not their intent, or goal, or even a consideration for them. Instead, they (efficient cause) seek only whatever shallow surface level 'explanation', seems to provide a useful rationalization - a narrative - for doing what they'd wanted to do all along. It's no coincidence that the modernist approach to causation is (final cause) an invaluable aid to keeping pre-modern ideas 'out of mind' for most of us in modernity, which (exemplary cause) aids in subverting the higher ends of the pre-modern world and serves the lower purposes that are more common today - all of which provides a glimpse into what causes the thugs of blm & antifa, who exemplify the modernist mindset, to riot and tear down statues of the likes of George Washington.
<br /><br />
It's also worth pointing out that the modernist's '<i>Exemplary Cause</i>', is what has been taught to generations of 'educators', and it thoroughly pervades the curriculum and administration of what is taught in our schools - public and private - to America's youth. Truly, causes - including an ignorance of them - do have effects, and ideas, especially bad ones, most definitely have consequences.
<br /><br />
If you want to know how we've come to such a meaningless world, a central cause of that is our popular lack of understanding of what causes anything at all. Just how easily we're distracted by what isn't there, we'll see in the next part.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-86256232974179485382023-07-07T07:32:00.002-05:002023-07-07T07:47:12.447-05:00Of Cause and Causelessness - causality & its effects (c)Whether the unfathomable outrage of the moment involves praising the burning down of cities as peaceful protests or ignoring those in order to spin up minor riots as horrific insurrections, or claiming that it takes a biologist to define what a woman is and yet any male from three years old on up can easily '<i>identify as</i>' and become a woman and even become pregnant, you can be sure that some philosopher's thoughts on causation will be found to be at the 'root cause' of it. And of course '<i>Those who know best</i>' are eager to assert those ideas as provable and even proven facts, to be passed on through media and wackademia as being the latest nuggets of wisdom that we're all supposed to accept as being beyond question, by people who believe they've captured the 'Wisdom' (the 'End of History') that 'uncritical' philosophers only pursue.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br/>
pt c: Cause and Causelessness...<br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br/>
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br/></div>
That alone should be cause enough for you to be wary as to whether or not 'accepted truths' come to your ears from the lips of Sophia, or someone very different. In an earlier post I'd mentioned <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-is-truth-it-is-what-it-is-or-its.html"> the Turtle Lady</a>, as an example of a sophist who (sincerely or not) defends their unquestionable claims against reasonable questions, with some variation upon:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... I know what you're doing, but it's no use, it's turtles all the way down!..."</span></em></blockquote>
, and it's in that format that is and always has been the trademark 'Tell' of sophistry - sincere or (more often) not - where, in lieu of knowledge we're offered only an endless regression of 'what ifs', whose only substantial purpose is to undermine people's confidence in what they know, so as to sway their audience towards whichever ideology it is that the sophist's 'critical commentary' is promoting as <i>the real</i> (usually hidden and 'smarter') 'truth' - which they never actually identify, or explain, but endlessly promise to deliver... eventually.
<br /><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="237" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-ih7X9sPZbE" title="Marxist philosophy: dialectical materialism" width="422"></iframe> </div><div style="float: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">"Let me make you feel a little less comfortable. This ground is not solid..."</span></div>
One popular form of these age-old sophisms today, is favored by the most deplorable of people (AKA: the Marxist inclined), who proclaim their paradoxes as materialistic revelations, such as that what we experience as solid ground, is 'akshually' riddled with fissures below, <a href="https://youtu.be/-ih7X9sPZbE?t=998">"Let me make you feel a little less comfortable. This ground is not solid..."</a>, or even that what we take as being a hard surface, is '<i>nothing but space on the atomic level</i>', with the point being that since you can't really trust your senses when they tell you something appears to be solid, which is 'actually' mostly empty space, then 'logically' you must agree that you cannot be certain of anything at all, and any claim that '<i>They!</i>' use to convince you that you can, is just a lie that serves the ruling class, the capitalists, etc., etc., etc.,
<br /><br />
The truth about such 'paradoxes' though, is that they are dis-ordered truths which vanish once they're put in the proper order & context, in that the supposed 'empty space' is a necessary feature of how solidity is achieved - when molecules, atoms, and particles are arranged so as to form a solid object, they are configured in such a way that, taken out of context, can be portrayed as 'empty space', but that arrangement on the sub-atomic level, is what creates what we experience 'up here' as solidity on the human level! The fact is that we <i>are</i> better able to understand the world around us, by using all those philosophic principles of science, techne, and wisdom, <i>so long as</i> they are properly ordered and aligned, to establish sound knowledge of what is real and true. So far from their supposed 'paradox' being a cause for you to doubt what you know, it is a confirmation of our knowledge and ability to understand what is real and true, which should heighten your wariness of the dangers of accepting baseless doubts, as actual knowledge.
<br /><br />
It is by artfully equivocating between very different forms of knowledge, again, as those like deGrasse-Tyson do, that the shallowest of observations are rhetorically transformed through a semblance of logical proofs, so that such unexamined sophistries that might have seemed foolish to those who knew better, are revealed to be a very practical means of nudging popular opinion along into accepting a set of assumptions based loosely upon physical causes and vague aspirations, which encourages one or two or both extremes of thinking, as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'We need order, and as one thing is as meaningless as the next, we will impose our collective ideal upon all!'</span></em></blockquote>
, or,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'If nothing causes anything, then anything goes!'</span></em></blockquote>
, which cause dissension and unrest amongst society, and though they may appear different, they're no more different than two sides of the same sophistical coin: demanding order be imposed, requires believing that Right & Wrong are the weakest of illusions which must be replaced by those who're able to impose power, just as those who believe that since nothing can be known, there can be no right <i>or</i> wrong, only a series of material causes & effects that are popular with 'those who know best' - the only significant point they differ on is who is '<i>the best</i>', you, or an 'expert' - which is a distinction without any fundamental difference.
<br /><br />
Notice also that what both sides of that sophistical coin ignore, beginning and end, corresponds to Identity & Telos. In Aristotle's system, you begin at the beginning by identifying what you're dealing with, and following where that leads, much like 'character is destiny', sets the direction of your thinking, and without those two formulations of beginning and end, you can easily, not to mention carelessly, construe what you will with what remains between them. To escape this modernist muddle of materialistic Cause & Effect, requires recovering those discarded aspects of Causation - beginning and end, and much more of what lies in between - and with that interest in looking honestly at reality, we're brought back around to Aristotle and his conception of 'The Four Causes'.
<br /><br />
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-3612786631326245832023-07-07T07:31:00.005-05:002023-07-09T14:53:10.510-05:00The Causation of egg on our faces - causality & its effects (b)By its very nature, Metaphysics is at the root of our every thought and action, but there's one of its features that is especially visible in seemingly separate fields of study, like Knowledge (Epistemology), and Ethics, <a href="http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol4-3/Hulswit.htm">and that's Causation</a>. It warrants your attention not because it has been at the center of so many philosophical firestorms in modernity (most having more to do with the baseless speculations of modern philosophers, than with what they did or could know of any causes at all), but because it is so intertwined into all of our thoughts and actions, beliefs, and policies, that what you do or don't know about it, will fundamentally affect how you'll think about or respond to, nearly everything in your everyday life.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-well-rounded-knowledge-of-root-causes.html" target="_blank">pt a: </a>A well rounded knowledge...<br />
pt b: Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
How it became so consequential isn't immediately obvious as you start reading what philosophers have had to say about Causation, as they don't usually begin by wondering what causes <i>us</i> to take the actions we do, such as striking a match to light a candle, instead they begin with what knowledge we can have of the material nature of issues such as what causes the candle wick to catch fire, or what causes metal to melt, or causes the sun to rise, all of which are informed by observations of empirical and scientific understanding (AKA: Entry level Knowledge). Some theories of Causation begin to take on an ominous air, as their seemingly innocuous, sometimes even silly, notions about what causes metal to melt, or the sun to rise, move swiftly from empirical observations, to ethical judgments, and even demands for political action (as noted earlier of Neil deGrasse-Tyson using his authority on scientific knowledge to justify demanding political action be taken), and it's by a number of mis-integrations and even disintegrations of causal relations between different forms of knowledge, that our accepted ideas of Causation, can cause all too real social and political turmoil in our day-to-day lives.
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 1px solid darkblue; float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh82NNnPJ7cZqyF12KbhBLBavJsXS151p0kfzxzZpNZsaU62SCIwMKlbObzXMUtejPJ0R33XwuFJdz12cqNZpGOSLeBxGb2P3QYm_DATWNJ4KNeoQXkMdKxgZyYY9dvfnhyZZ8ZbM8whs4Z0pUvL4DhaVBetNcA8alOFcfyfWx-4DziIqWHH01-5Q/s601/Scientism-Dialectic%20-%20Unconstrained%20Analytics.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="517" data-original-width="601" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh82NNnPJ7cZqyF12KbhBLBavJsXS151p0kfzxzZpNZsaU62SCIwMKlbObzXMUtejPJ0R33XwuFJdz12cqNZpGOSLeBxGb2P3QYm_DATWNJ4KNeoQXkMdKxgZyYY9dvfnhyZZ8ZbM8whs4Z0pUvL4DhaVBetNcA8alOFcfyfWx-4DziIqWHH01-5Q/s320/Scientism-Dialectic%20-%20Unconstrained%20Analytics.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Scientism—a Hallmark of the Dialectic, a Weapon of the Left (pg 14)</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br /><br />
The consequences of theories of causation gain in intensity through how they do or don't attend to the lowest and highest considerations of causation, as modernists tend to deliberately ignore and even ridicule those aspects that come closest to Identity (what Is) and Telos ( direction, intent) - which, ignored or not, aims and becomes the aim of their thoughts, which in a thousand different ways are insinuated into the popular opinions that we typically think with. That telos affects whether such patterns of thought will tend to lift you up into the broad light of day, or drive you down into the narrow darkness of an endless night of facts shorn from truth.
<br /><br />
Pre-modern philosophers like Aristotle, began considering causation by observing the physical nature and effects of what was visible around them, and in a number of his works, including his physics (yes, still <a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10144/1/Aristotele.pdf">worth reading</a>), he confined his observations, as Newton would do long after him with Gravity, to describing the effects of causality that he <i>could</i> see, without claiming to either fully understand or deny what he couldn't see in it. His ideas of <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.5.v.html" target="_blank">Actuality and Potency</a>, intuited principles of what was most likely happening just beyond the visible surface, from those particulars that could be observed occurring, which enabled something such as the hardened state that a metal like bronze holds as its normal Actuality, to also have the Potency - the potential - to change by melting into a liquid form under significantly high temperatures. The high level language he used to describe those features is still remarkably applicable to, or at least doesn't outright contradict, the very much more detailed molecular & chemical knowledge of today, which he lacked (though some modern physicists do think <a href="https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/24227/">that ol' Aristotle's Act and Potency</a> was more on target than he himself could've imagined).
<br /><br />
Importantly, Aristotle didn't attempt to pass off either his ignorance or what doubts he might've had about what he couldn't be certain of as 'knowledge', that was suitable for guiding or declaring what else could be known, and the reason why was that the purpose of his philosophizing was to attempt to describe what was in fact <i>True</i>, rather than concocting a popular narrative that might be made socially or politically... useful.
<br /><br />
The Sophists, OTOH, then as now, are primarily concerned with concocting narratives that ape philosophy's love of wisdom, by making a sensational use of a 'critical dialectic', which they pass off as being equivalent or superior to philosophy. Aristotle dismantled those sophistries elsewhere in his Metaphysics, but it was the nature of their imitation of appearances, that he remarked on here, as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...So too there are certain properties peculiar to being </span></em>[Existence, Reality] <em>as such, and it is about these that the philosopher has to investigate the truth.-An indication of this may be mentioned: dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistic is Wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic, and being is common to all things; but evidently their dialectic embraces these subjects because these are proper to philosophy.-For sophistic and dialectic turn on the same class of things as philosophy, but this differs from dialectic in the nature of the faculty required and from sophistic in respect of the purpose of the philosophic life. Dialectic is merely critical where philosophy claims to know, and sophistic is what appears to be philosophy but is not....."</em></blockquote>
The Sophists 'critical dialectic' consists of raising arbitrary doubts out of thin air, with which they claim to have actually captured that Wisdom which philosophers more modestly pursue. From there, the Sophists sling their doubts wildly around until they're formed into supposed paradoxes for startling listeners into paying attention to their claims to <i>know</i> 'the truth' about issues, which could claim both that Change isn't possible, and just as easily that <i>'Change!'</i> is all there is, without in either case ever actually explaining what they truly mean by any part of that.
<br /><br />
Where philosophers seek first to know what IS, and from there pursue what they can intuit is truthfully compatible with that in order to enlarge understanding, the Sophists assert & sow doubts in order to deny what IS, so as to claim that anything could be, or could be anything other than what it is, in order to cause discord and encourage action, so as to, as Marx infamously <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm#018">declared that:</a> <blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it"</span></em></blockquote>
Despite how absurd such claims (rightfully) appear to be to most sensible people, we need to resist the urge to brush their sophistries off as '<i>Eggheaded gibberish that's of no concern to me!</i>', because the danger of these sophistries, and to the society they spread through, comes from thinking that they have and can have no impact on <i>your</i> life, as that is nearly as far from the truth as the sophistries themselves are.
<br /><br />
For decades we've made the mistake of laughing off the absurdities that've been taught on our college campuses as merely pointy-headed foolishness, while ignoring the fact that generations of American youth have been taught to take those claims and ideals <i>seriously</i>, which has left us particularly vulnerable to being swept up in the downstream effects of these absurdities, as they've flipped our Corporate HR Dept's, and financial rating schemes, around to imposing those 'pointy headed absurdities' of DEI, through the exceedingly pointy end of dangerously powerful policies and laws which <i>are</i> maiming our children's lives in our schools, and across the workplace and society as a whole.
<br /><br />
The Sophist's 'Critical Dialectic', whether in classical Greece, the opening of Modernity, or today's Post-Modern America, is to propose that we (uncritically) ingest whichever set of doubts they've proposed as being of value, while ignoring what their sum total actually amounts to: causeless doubts which have no substance. When they're successful at peddling such beliefs, their dialectic begins to function as a philosophical acid, dissolving whichever knowledge of the prevailing wisdom is being targeted by them, in order to carry out its primary purpose - transforming that meaning (especially that which aids you in conceiving of and living a good life), into meaning nothing to you. Of course where there is no meaning, no vision, <i>'...the people perish</i>', and many sophists see in that perishing the opportunity ('<i>don't let a crisis go to waste</i>') to pursue and capture the power which they intend to fully utilize for however long their '15 minutes' of infamy might be made to last.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-58460203456439629442023-07-07T07:30:00.005-05:002023-07-07T09:53:06.262-05:00A well rounded knowledge of the root causes - causality & its effects (a)Ideally, as gone into in the previous posts (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-reality-of-abstract-is-what-is.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-is-truth-it-is-what-it-is-or-its.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/is-demonstrates-that-what-is.html" target="_blank">here</a>), what's worth knowing, tells us about '<i>What is Truth</i>', and with the differing kinds of knowledge that can be known, he who knows their causes, will know them (and themselves) best. At the root of those causes that philosophy can tell us about, is the understanding that Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with, that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><i><a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html" target="_blank">"All men by nature desire to know</a></i>"</span></em></blockquote>
<div style="border: 2px solid darkblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 3px; width: 15%;"><b>Causality & its effects parts a-g</b><br />
pt a: A well rounded knowledge...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-causation-of-egg-on-our-faces.html" target="_blank">pt b: </a>Causation of egg on our faces...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/of-cause-and-causelessness-causality.html" target="_blank">pt c:</a> Cause and Causelessness...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/causation-squared-causality-its-effects.html" target="_blank">pt d:</a> Causation Squared...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/distracting-you-with-what-isnt-actually.html" target="_blank">pt e:</a> Distracting you with...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/facts-are-only-as-stubborn-as-you-are.html" target="_blank">pt f:</a> Facts are only as stubborn as you...<br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-logical-consequences-of-either.html" target="_blank">pt g:</a> Logical consequences of....<br /></div>
, but because some choose poorly, and do so repeatedly, even obstinately, we know that truth is not what all men desire to 'know', and we know that some men want what they want with little or no knowledge of what would cause those desires to become a reality and without regard for the consequences that might be caused by that. For the rest of us who care about truth <i>and</i> its consequences, what Metaphysics can reveal to us about Knowledge and Cause, can help us gain an understanding that'll help restore what was lost when we gave up the ideal of a 'well rounded education', and return to us a little more of the command that we seem to have lost over our lives, but we should not forget that <i>some of us</i> have no interest in learning that, and many of those would rather that you didn't hear about it either - and sadly we've put many of those in charge of our schools.
<br /><br />
Philosophy has separate branches for going more in depth into these two key terms, with Epistemology clarifying what we mean by knowledge and how to verify that it is what it claims to be (which we'll get into in coming posts), and for the aspect of causation I'm most interested in, the Ethics clarifies how you should respond to Causes in your life (whether from external circumstances or what you internally come to understand), and while Aristotle goes into more depth on both in other books like his Nichomachean Ethics, Analytics, and even the Physics, in the Metaphysics he looks at their foundations, and as it's a safe bet that a better understanding of that can have a sizable impact on your day to day doings and possibly even the entire course of your life, it's worth taking a closer look at those basics, and we'll begin that in this post with Knowledge.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilgCQP6wiM3IPxLzGS5xIQgsSGpASc9-o6_7RR2YfosSMvri_PhmGIbGAVPMtrYu2spBrv5b7QCTMU_AyZtffLtJ8Lxk3gik9p09GII2Cig0I-j-okHpZE0QuVpAuoSCNGNNEG1pyFxCfHyUeLaPqADJtgmD1Hn8M2NFVkAaJnar-musjmErPBYg/s580/IQTest2.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="272" data-original-width="580" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilgCQP6wiM3IPxLzGS5xIQgsSGpASc9-o6_7RR2YfosSMvri_PhmGIbGAVPMtrYu2spBrv5b7QCTMU_AyZtffLtJ8Lxk3gik9p09GII2Cig0I-j-okHpZE0QuVpAuoSCNGNNEG1pyFxCfHyUeLaPqADJtgmD1Hn8M2NFVkAaJnar-musjmErPBYg/s320/IQTest2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
One of the potentially course correcting nuggets that the Metaphysics provides, is in making an important distinction about the nature of knowledge, in that knowledge, which always aims at some form of good, can be categorized by how much calculation and deliberation is or is not involved in apprehending and applying that knowledge. On one end of the scale is the fact that some knowledge involves little or no degree of chance or context in it or in the principles derived from it, while the remaining forms of knowledge involve ever increasing degrees of chance and context in how we go about both grasping and applying that knowledge. What Aristotle notes in <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html">book VI of his Nichomachean Ethics</a>,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...it is thought to be the mark of a prudent man to be able to deliberate rightly about what is good and advantageous…But nobody deliberates about things that are invariable..."</span></em></blockquote>
, highlights what is missed by not understanding how differently chance and uncertainty affect what we know and how to apply it, and failing to do so can result in our being harmed by, rather than benefiting from, the knowledge we acquire - truly: <i>'A <b>little</b> knowledge can be a dangerous thing'</i>.
<br /><br />
To illustrate, beginning with the extreme end which Aristotle includes the categories of mathematics and theology in, we know that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle in a Euclidean plane (an important caveat) will always be 180* - and that knowledge is as true today, as it will be true tomorrow, just as it has been from the beginning of time, and as it will be to the end of time. No chances of context or material configuration need to be allowed for in that invariable truth - there is nothing to deliberate about, no judgements to be considered and weighed - for once it is understood by observation, that knowledge only needs to be identified, to be known and applied, and we'd be rightly concerned about the person who continued to deliberate upon and 'fact check' the sum of degrees in every possible triangle (it's worth noting, because it is so often misused & abused, that Math & Geometry are not pure truths somehow existing apart form and unsullied with reality and experience - their is no concept of a line, or a number, except through experience and inferring from quantities of it. Dualism is false, even on that level).
<br /><br />
OTOH, every other form of knowledge outside of mathematics and theology, contains some variability of chance and context to be considered and deliberated upon, so as to make a worthwhile judgement about it. How well your knowledge can serve the good you are aiming at, depends a great deal upon how well you recognize the nature and variations within it. With that in mind, let's take a look at how Knowledge can be generalized into three basic categories, varying in degree from that which requires the least judgment in attaining and applying that knowledge, to the most :
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li><b>Empeiría/Epistemé</b> - often translated as only one word or the other, what we call Empirical, refers to the facts and data of experience, while Epistemé refers to the principled methods of Science; </li>
<li><b>Tékhne</b> - what we today call Technology, is the “art” or “technique” of putting the facts and data of experience to use;</li>
<li><b>Sophía</b> - Wisdom (Philosophy, philo-Sophia, being the love of wisdom) goes deeper and sees farther into how to turn the experiences and arts of living, towards having lives that are worth living</li>
</ul></span>
</blockquote>
Those differences in the nature of knowledge, in how it is gathered, learned, and applied, can be glimpsed in the differences between knowing how to identify the molecular nature of water, knowing how best to package and convey, and/or sell water, and knowing to bring extra water when crossing a desert or to boil it when traveling. Being aware of those distinctions, and how best to form judgments from each of those perspectives, is what lays behind the now nearly forgotten ideal of getting a general and 'well rounded' education.
<br /><br />
Those who lack (or ignore) that understanding, tend to embody the old joke about '<i>if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail</i>' - or the equally appalling "<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal.html">You should only believe a truth that is scientifically verifiable</a>". By having some depth and dimension to what you know <i>about </i>what you know, you are less likely to mistake what is appropriate with one form of knowledge, as also being appropriate to another - our knowledge of the molecular structure of water and how it interacts with what contains it, is not known in the same way as how best to convey that water, or whether or when water should be charged for or provided free of charge - and not knowing those distinctions, implicitly degrades the quality of all of what you do know, and what you might attempt to do with that knowledge.
<br /><br />
That being said, it's worth poking just a little bit further into the essentials of the three basic categories of knowledge:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>
<b>Empirical/Science</b> - these refer to two very different aspects of the knowledge being translated here. How we experience empirical knowledge typically begins with what we all have a casual and even accidental firsthand awareness of - that rocks are hard, water is wet, and fire is hot - it takes no judgment to apprehend such empirical facts, it simply is, and we perceive it. It's in observing and seeking to discover <i>why</i> those facts are the way they are, that leads the inquirer into discovering and identifying what makes them that way, but once those truths, principles, and laws are discovered to be behind that, they do not change and are thereafter there to be learned, and that methodical aspect of gathering and applying that knowledge - heavier on understanding than judgment - is what's usually translated as Episteme, and is more like what we recognize as Scientific knowledge today. By following Aristotle's lead and going further down paths which he only partially anticipated, we've developed that understanding into a more methodical means of applying the principle of non-contradiction to all that we know, subjecting our assumptions and biases to experimentation and verification for the purpose of better understanding the more eternal reasons for how and why it is that we experience a rock as being hard, and what it is about water that makes it feel wet, as well as how it is that the molecular composition of water can be decomposed into its explosively firey elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen, and so on, and the refinement of that process which has become the Scientific Method, has laid the foundations for the modern conveniences and marvels we enjoy today.
</li></ul></span></blockquote>
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>
<b>Technique and Technology</b>, bridges the unchanging and non-deliberative knowledge developed in the scientific fields of chemistry, geology, physics, etc., with the form of knowledge that requires a great deal of deliberating upon, in order to calculate how the various concerns in what we chance to bump into in everyday life, can be utilized in putting that knowledge to work, as with controling the flow of water to generate electricity, or seeing how the chemical structure of a problematic & oily substance found in the ground, could be refined into a new form that would power engines that could do work for us, and developing vehicles that can take us farther and faster on land, see, air, and even space, than was ever dreamt of prior to that understanding. The form of knowledge which scientists discover about the world we live in, the technician develops into different forms of knowledge in specialized techniques and new technologies, which commerce transforms into previously unimagined improvements to the circumstances of our lives. </li></ul></span></blockquote>
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul><li>
<b>Wisdom </b>, specifically that part of wisdom, Phronesis, that's translated as Practical Wisdom or Prudence, looks more deeply into our available knowledge, and more broadly into our experiences, to see farther than either science or technology do or can, and is especially mindful of the degree of chance and choice that is always involved in acting on 'what we know' in our lives. The role of the wise, the (believe it or not) intellectuals, is to take note of what is common between our many experiences - the One in the Many - to discover and make known the principles behind that knowledge and how to effectively use them to better our lives. The Metaphysics <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html">notes that</a>,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes..."</span></em></blockquote>
, but the person who not only has the broader knowledge belonging to wisdom, but prudence as well, focuses not just on unchanging principles, but demonstrates a knack for calculating how best to apply that timeless knowledge and experience to the ever changing circumstances of daily life; <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html">in the Nicomachaen Ethics</a>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...wisdom is a combination of both the virtue of science and the virtue of understanding..."</span></em></blockquote>
, the prudent person demonstrates a knack for intelligently combining a knowledge of fact and efficiency that comes from science, and from technology, with a knowledge of the timeless principles governing circumstances and personalities, to make the choices of calculated judgment regarding right and wrong, life and death, that are both accurate and principled, and effective at improving not only our apparent circumstances, but the quality of the lives we're able to live (which gives you a glimpse at what a failure the Intellectual Class of modernity, is).
</li></ul></span></blockquote>
The Scientific Method which has led us to understand that '<i>this molecule of water has two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen</i>', involves a very different form of knowledge and judgment, than that which is involved in deliberating upon the means of conveying water to the people who need it via an aqueduct, water lines, or bottled water, which are all very different forms of knowledge, and involve different forms of judgement in applying them, than that which is involved in determining what does and doesn't justify such constructions or commercial distributions, and even laws governing access to it, and each is fostered by, and depends upon, our philosophical understanding of the nature and limits of what we can know, and how we know it, and what it is that we do, and don't know, in knowing it.
<br /><br />
The wise and prudent person understands that, contrary to popular (modern) belief, knowledge is <i>not</i> power, or it is at least not the obedient servant that we've been led to think of it as being, and knowledge severed from principled understanding <i>and</i> experience, is a blinding danger to all. Knowledge, when its variations are rightly understood, and when we are cognizant of how and why matters both large and seemingly small can lead to unexpected consequences in our lives - always mindful of the context of choice and chance - <i>can</i> be put to work which benefits all - but that requires the pursuit of understanding, rather than the pursuit of power.
<br /><br />
However dazzling the improvements that the Scientific Method has brought to modernity, it's important to keep in mind that the judgments of those in science and technology, are typically concerned with much narrower calculations to improve measurable efficiencies for comfort and/or profit within their society - conveniently ignoring the fact that a society, a culture, are forms of knowledge that science and technology can neither conceive of, nor create, nor maintain - the scientific method, and the ability to apply it, is a very different thing from the weight of making judgments about immeasurable aspects of how best to live, or how best to respond in life or death contexts, and while each life is immeasurably improved by knowledge of what is wise, the wisest person cannot possibly know the manifold circumstances and context that each individual has to consider in the decisions they make every day in the living of their lives. All forms of knowledge are important, but it's even more important not to confuse one for the other.
<br /><br />
The role of a well-rounded education is to impart how the essentials of science, technology, and the Humanities (arts, literature, history), fit into and form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, with the understanding that being able to see that whole through each part's perspective, helps to convey an appreciation of how those differences are all needed to form a solid and sound whole, and without which we are limited to seeing less of what there is to see - both in the form of better appreciating the whole, and what endangers it. Those with the interest and aptitude to delve into a particular field at greater depth, so with the larger picture in mind, as they pursued a more detailed knowledge of the part which interested them most, within the whole.
<br /><br />
This is not to minimize or ignore the feats of ingenuity and even courage that may be involved in operating in any one of these fields, but to point out the importance of distinguishing between the varying forms of knowledge and judgement involved in scientific, technical, and intellectual fields, so as to have the depth to avoid being misled by seemingly 'obvious answers' that lead to long lasting harm. Especially today, as the ideal of a broad and well-rounded education has been displaced by a focus upon narrowly specialized skills, we too easily risk mistaking a person's abundant cleverness in their own field, as being equivalent to that wisdom they lack, and who - whether that be ourselves or the follies of the likes of a Neil deGrass Tyson that we <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal.html">began these posts</a> with - see no issue with freely advising and advocating for using legislative power to order how others 'should' be made to live, because that's 'obviously' for the 'greater good', and the popular approval of that sort of thinking, spreads it, and endangers us all.
<br /><br />
If it isn't clear to you what value is gained by making those distinctions within what you know and how you know it, which is what a well rounded education provides, the absence of that understanding is on full display in the bloody and destructive global history of the 20th Century for you to learn from (did you know that the ideal of a well rounded education was <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/02/for-education-to-be-meaningful-its.html">mostly gone by 1895?</a>). There you'll find an abundance of lessons for learning hard truths from, with each one demonstrating that those paths forged for '<i>the greater good</i>' of all, inevitably, invariably, have led and will lead to vast numbers of people experiencing lives rent by the greatest misery and destruction imaginable.
<br /><br />
What drove those events, was that worst development of modernity, Ideology (conceived of in 1796 as <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2020/03/founders-of-ideology-reducing-our.html">a 'science of ideas'</a>), which inherently targets the ideal of a 'well rounded education', preferring to reduce all knowledge to 'scientific' facts and skills, as well as in planning for, and applying them. Ideology despises chance, free will, choice, virtue, morality, art, wisdom, and all the other 'irrationalities' which make human life worth living well, ignoring and denying them in its drive to impose its certainty (of what?) upon society as a collective whole, with the presumption that individuals are little more than empirical factors to be scientifically managed through their theories.
<br /><br />
There is nothing smart about proposals which measure all that's worth knowing by '<i>Science!</i>', or that decide right and wrong by what '<i>Artificial Intelligence</i>' tells us, or that justifies slighting or slandering the individual rights of any for '<i>the greater good!</i>', and there is no 'progress' that can be found in going down such paths, only regress.
<br /><br />
How science and technology get passed off as the highest of high judgment, overlooking what's essential to knowledge and the application of it, has a lot to do with how little we consider what causes us to think and do this or that, and the role of judgment involved in acting and reacting to those causes, which is what we'll look into next, with Causality.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-71878951507149839792023-07-04T06:37:00.000-05:002023-07-04T06:37:47.223-05:00Calvin Coolidge, Thomas Jefferson, James Otis, and reflecting upon how dependent America is, upon Americans' understanding our Declaration of Independence<div>Two points before getting to my annual reposting of <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/presidential-messages.html#Inspiration">Calvin Coolidge's speech</a> on the "<i>Inspiration of our <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">Declaration of Independence</a></i>", and to the Declaration itself- the first, which <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/e-pluribus-unum-pre-independence-day.html" target="_blank">I went into a little bit of detail here</a>, is that the Declaration of Independence is the vehicle through which we become <i>one</i> people, Americans, and that it's inheritance is not one of blood, but of ideals. To affirm:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'... these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...'</span></em></blockquote>,is your ticket in to the American body-politic, it is your passport to recite the later phrases with the rest of us, so that '<i><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html" target="_blank">We The People</a></i>' are <i>able </i>to form a more perfect union <i>because </i>we do hold these truths to be self-evident. It is how we are made '<i>e Pluribus Unum - Out of many, One</i>' people, and our diverse origins and differences are transformed into interesting footnotes to our lives, rather than defining - or dividing - features of them.</div><div><div><br /></div>The second point, is that our independence wasn't begun on July 4th 1776, that was simply the end of the beginning. And in what seems more terrifyingly clear to me this year of 2023, more than any previous one in my memory, is how central to America that the Declaration of Independence is, and to there being Americans in it, and for either of those to continue on for long into the future.</div><div>
<br />
I'm not talking about each person having a copy of it - the document itself is meaningless and useless without a people who understand it. The Declaration of Independence only came into being in the first place, <i>because </i>there was a people along the eastern seaboard who understood its meaning well before it was written. Thomas Jefferson later commented that he made no attempt to be innovative or '<i>revolutionary</i>' when writing it, but only that he intended it "<i>... to be an expression of the American mind...</i>" - is it an expression of yours?<br />
<br />
John Adams, in the first quotation below, recalled that in his opinion the American Revolution actually began in 1761, when James Otis spoke against the <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/early-american-documents.html#James%20Otis">'Writs of Assistance'</a> to an assembled crowd, calling out a wealth of classical allusions and a sweeping summation of history and of legal gems, which roused all of his listeners through a torrent of eloquence so profound that Adams thought it had sparked the revolution 'then and there'. Otis too expressed only the common content and passions of "<i>the American mind</i>", and so I ask you, if a new James Otis were to speak to us like that today, how many people living here in America would recognize any of what he summarized or recognize why it was important? Would those modern listeners be more likely to be moved by his eloquence... or to shrug it away with a texted 'TLDR' ('Too Long Didn't Read')?
<br />
<br />
How likely is it that we can long have either America or Americans in it, without the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> being both known and understood by at least a majority of them? And how well can it be understood by a people who've been 'educated' out of any familiarity with that history, its important ideas, and a perspective that <i>values </i>profound truths eloquently expressed?
<br />
<br />
Don't bother muttering against our schools, they have dropped the ball, intentionally, and they cannot be looked to for help in picking it back up. It's <i>you</i> who needs to do this, beginning with yourself, and counting on no one else to fill the contents of your own mind with what it has until now lacked. The internet is open to you, and I've provide the links you need here to get started. You and no one else are responsible, for America continuing to be populated with Americans... or at least with one (who can then tell another).
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1yxT14eseIU/U7bLTjNEWuI/AAAAAAAAI20/bfEddw7lVeE27CiGCwRH-MMcPuYuBbhdQCPcBGAYYCw/s960/The%2BInspiration%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDeclaration%2Bof%2BIndependence%2B-%2BCalvin%2BCoolidge%2B%2528cleaning%2Bup%2Bafter%2BWilson%252C%2BJuly%2B5%252C%2B1926%2529.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1yxT14eseIU/U7bLTjNEWuI/AAAAAAAAI20/bfEddw7lVeE27CiGCwRH-MMcPuYuBbhdQCPcBGAYYCw/w400-h300/The%2BInspiration%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDeclaration%2Bof%2BIndependence%2B-%2BCalvin%2BCoolidge%2B%2528cleaning%2Bup%2Bafter%2BWilson%252C%2BJuly%2B5%252C%2B1926%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>July 4th 1776,</i> was the end of the beginning of America's Independence, it's up to you to ensure that July 4th 2023 isn't the beginning of its end. And to ensure that... you need to start back at the beginning. And where our independence began, according to a fellow that was in attendance at both events, John Adams, was when <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/early-american-documents.html#James%20Otis">James Otis spoke against King George's 'Writs of Assistance'</a> back in 1761, which <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6735">as Adams recalled it</a>,
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">",,,But Otis was a flame of fire! With a promptitude of Classical Allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events & dates, a profusion of Legal Authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous Eloquence he hurried away all before him. American Independence was then & there born. The seeds of Patriots & Heroes to defend the Non sine Diis Animosus Infans; to defend the Vigorous Youth were then & there sown. Every Man of an immense crouded Audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take Arms against Writs of Assistants. Then and there was the first scene of the first Act of opposition to the Arbitrary claims of Great Britain. <b>Then and there the Child Independence was born. In fifteen years i.e. in 1776. he grew up to Manhood, & declared himself free</b>.,,,"</span></em>[emphasis mine]</blockquote>
I point that out, because it underlines the importance of what is perhaps <i>most</i> remarkable about what the Declaration of Independence's author, Thomas Jefferson, considered to be the <i>least </i>remarkable aspect of it - that he intended the Declaration as an expression of ideas that were familiar and commonly understood, by the majority of Americans, of that time, as <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-12-correspondence-and-papers-1816-1826#Jefferson_0054-12_439">Jefferson wrote to a friend in later years</a>, about what it was meant to accomplish:
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..."</span></em></blockquote>
That is why we are unique in the annals of human history, as being a nation <i>founded upon ideas</i> (those twits mouthing on about '<i>inherent American anti-intellectualism</i>' can kiss my patriotic ass). And those common ideas, and their influence, continued to serve as strong guides for the later creation of our <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">Constitution</a>, can be easily found in even a cursory reading, between the charges of the Declaration of Independence against King George, and their reflection in our Constitution and the amendments to it, and ...<br />
<blockquote>
<em><b>"<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html" target="_blank">To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World</a>."</b></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html" target="_blank">1st Amendment</a></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security<b>."</b></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html" target="_blank">2nd Amendment</a></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">The first three articles of our Constitution, divides Govt into three branches, which prevent any one person or wing from attaining a monopoly of power over the others.</span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">This is what our Constitution was expressly designed to forbid, which unfortunately is what the pro-regressive Administrative State, was erected upon it to encourage (as was our politically instituted educational system) - proof that Laws that do not live in the hearts and minds of the people, cannot protect them against themselves</span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">Congress has control of organizing and funding the military budget, and while the Executive has command of the military, he can not do much, for long, without the further consent of the people's representatives, and in all ways, the military is under civil control.</span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIII.html">3rd Amendment</a></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_3.html">Article 3, Sections 2, Clause 3</a>, as well as the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Amendments of the Bill of Rights</span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_3_commerce.html">Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3</a></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:</span></em><br />
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_3.html">Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3</a></span></em></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
"FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">5th and 6th Amendments</a> (and more) </span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
, and if you take the time to read both, you will find many, many, more points of harmony between the two.
<br />
<br />
But enough, onto Calvin Coolidge's speech, and a happy Independence Day to you all!
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/presidential-messages.html#Inspiration" target="_blank">The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence</a></b><br />
Given in <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 14.6667px; font-weight: bold;"> </span>July 5, 1926:<br />
<br />
<div class="wrapContainer">
<div class="image-right" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img alt="President Calvin Coolidge" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/__xYVc3yvNKk/Sk7Sf08cbQI/AAAAAAAAAJk/FjdNhjm5GvU/s320/coolidge.gif" /></div>
</div>
We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human<br />
experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.<br />
<br />
It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.<br />
<br />
It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.<br />
<br />
It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.<br />
<br />
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.<br />
<br />
While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.<br />
<br />
This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.<br />
<br />
When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.<br />
<br />
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.<br />
<br />
It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.<br />
<br />
The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.<br />
<br />
But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:<br />
The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people<br />
<br />
The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.<br />
<br />
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused," in 1710 which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.<br />
<br />
While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.<br />
<br />
That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent". It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man". Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . ." And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine". And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state". Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.<br />
<br />
When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."<br />
<br />
No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.<br />
<br />
Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.<br />
<br />
If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.<br />
<br />
We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.<br />
<br />
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.<br />
<br />
In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self government; the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government". The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.<br />
<br />
On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.<br />
<br />
It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.<br />
<br />
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.<br />
<br />
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.<br />
<br />
***************<br />
Happy Independence Day America!
**************************
<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript" target="_blank">In Congress, July 4, 1776</a>.</h3>
<strong>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,</strong> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<br />
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.<br />
<div class="space-left">
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.<br />
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.<br />
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.<br />
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.<br />
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.<br />
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.<br />
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.<br />
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.<br />
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.<br />
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.<br />
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.<br />
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.<br />
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:<br />
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:<br />
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:<br />
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:<br />
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:<br />
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:<br />
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences<br />
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:<br />
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:<br />
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.<br />
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.<br />
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.<br />
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.<br />
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.<br />
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.</div>
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.<br />
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.<br />
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.<br />
<hr />
<div class="nwidget nlayout ncolumns row make-eq" data-columns="4x1_4">
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Georgia</strong><br />
Button Gwinnett<br />
Lyman Hall<br />
George Walton<br />
<br />
<strong>North Carolina</strong><br />
William Hooper<br />
Joseph Hewes<br />
John Penn<br />
<br />
<strong>South Carolina</strong><br />
Edward Rutledge<br />
Thomas Heyward, Jr.<br />
Thomas Lynch, Jr.<br />
Arthur Middleton<br />
<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
John Hancock</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Maryland</strong><br />
Samuel Chase<br />
William Paca<br />
Thomas Stone<br />
Charles Carroll of Carrollton<br />
<br />
<strong>Virginia</strong><br />
George Wythe<br />
Richard Henry Lee<br />
Thomas Jefferson<br />
Benjamin Harrison<br />
Thomas Nelson, Jr.<br />
Francis Lightfoot Lee<br />
Carter Braxton<br />
<br />
<strong>Pennsylvania</strong><br />
Robert Morris<br />
Benjamin Rush<br />
Benjamin Franklin<br />
John Morton<br />
George Clymer<br />
James Smith<br />
George Taylor<br />
James Wilson<br />
George Ross</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Delaware</strong><br />
Caesar Rodney<br />
George Read<br />
Thomas McKean<br />
<br />
<strong>New York</strong><br />
William Floyd<br />
Philip Livingston<br />
Francis Lewis<br />
Lewis Morris<br />
<br />
<strong>New Jersey</strong><br />
Richard Stockton<br />
John Witherspoon<br />
Francis Hopkinson<br />
John Hart<br />
Abraham Clark<br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire</strong><br />
Josiah Bartlett<br />
William Whipple<br />
</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Samuel Adams<br />
John Adams<br />
Robert Treat Paine<br />
Elbridge Gerry<br />
<br />
<strong>Rhode Island</strong><br />
Stephen Hopkins<br />
William Ellery<br />
<br />
<strong>Connecticut</strong><br />
Roger Sherman<br />
Samuel Huntington<br />
William Williams<br />
Oliver Wolcott<br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire</strong><br />
Matthew Thornton</div></div></div>Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-9139836388516517382023-05-29T09:31:00.002-05:002023-05-29T09:31:48.711-05:00Memorial Day - A day to remember those who died for... what? Memorial Day, the last Monday in May, is a day set aside to remember and honor those who have died in the armed forces of the United States of America. If we are to honor and memorialize those who gave their lives, can we do so properly without being mindful of what it was that they offered up, and lost, their lives in defense of?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IEDG5W0ejxI/U4Kg34FXZeI/AAAAAAAAIqs/luDxljWsCh4/s1600/RememberTheFallen.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IEDG5W0ejxI/U4Kg34FXZeI/AAAAAAAAIqs/luDxljWsCh4/s1600/RememberTheFallen.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
After all, unlike the service members of other nations around the world who pledge their lives in defense of the nation, or the homeland, or the government or crown, the members of our armed forces do not. They did at one time, prior to 1789 members of the armed forces swore allegiance to the United States of America, but afterwards, with some short lived variations for officers, members of our military first g<a href="http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html">ive their oath as</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;....", </span></em></blockquote>
and only in pursuance of that, do they also swear <br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."</span></em></blockquote>
Although that is most assuredly a solemn service to the nation, their lives are not sworn primarily <i>to</i> the nation, or <i>to</i> the government or <i>to</i> the President. They swear to support, to defend and to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance, <i>to</i>,<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/"> the Constitution of the United States of America</a>.
<br />
<br />
Can any decent person, with that in mind, especially on this day, dare to think of that document as being simply a piece of paper? Or that the Constitution they sacrificed their lives for, was primarily created for the ability of politicians to jockey for power, to bargain for benefits and to increase the influence of one political party or another?
<br />
<br />
I do so hope your answer to that is <i>No</i>.
<br />
<br />
The Constitution is not simply a piece of paper, and it is far more than a set of rules to define how government is to operate. Its laws were created by men in order to preserve and protect that which is by nature necessary for our being able to live our lives as human beings. Not just regulations, but laws written under the principles of Natural Law, designed to harness men's baser (and <i>also </i>inalienable) faults - such as ambition for power - to serve the purpose of preserving and defending the highest of political aspirations: <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">liberty and justice for all</a>.<br />
<br />
The Constitution doesn't simply define our laws, but their limits.
<br />
<br />
The Constitution, which would not have been passed by <i>We The People</i>, <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/06/you-have-no-constitutional-rights-none.html">without the promise that it would be immediately amended with what became the Bill of Rights</a>, those first ten amendments to it, is not simply paper, but words which harness the power of <i>We The People</i> to protect a select few rights which were understood as being necessary to prevent a tyrant from successfully rising amongst them or their posterity.
<br />
<br />
The Constitution was <i>not </i>designed to make the operations of government efficient, smooth and easy, but was instead deliberately designed so that its branches and operations would serve to slow, stall, and kill any implement of power - aka: Law - which some significant body of representatives of <i>We The People</i> (whether in the House, Senate, Executive or Judiciary) might see as being a threat to their liberty to live as human beings.
<br />
<br />
Those men and women we honor on Memorial Day served and died, not in defense of a government, or a leader, or for a piece of paper, but for the rule of laws which recognize, uphold and defend the right of human beings to live their own lives in liberty, and respectful of others right to do the same.
<br />
<br />
Can we honestly honor the dead, without honoring what they gave their lives for?
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1b4p-nEn6B0/U4Kg4AB05qI/AAAAAAAAIq8/o7JUXEB0gk4/s1600/Memorialized.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1b4p-nEn6B0/U4Kg4AB05qI/AAAAAAAAIq8/o7JUXEB0gk4/s1600/Memorialized.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Please keep that in mind the next time you hear someone talking about getting around the Constitution - for the Constitution is the reason why there are so very, very many, whose lives are honored and memorialized on this day, and so very, very many others, whose lives were so deeply affected by their loss for the remainder of their days.
Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com0