The President We Deserve
It will have been said of us one day that we elected the president we richly deserve. The reason Barack Obama won was that his followers resent absolutes…hierarchical and authoritative. That goes particularly for authoritative religion which the Enlightened-mostly the media–despise. This is a secular state. The other day when Justice Scalia spoke and invoked God the media looked at themselves questioningly. Violation of church and state? Only the primitives go to authoritative churches like the benighted evangelicals or the one in four Catholics who attend weekly mass.
Oh, you CAN go to church (actually it’s good to hear about love-love-love and civil rights, as per the Rotary Club). But what the majority of Americans now hate…with a fury…is definite moral strictures on things. That smacks of primitive superstition. Where once this country was founded on bedrock Christianity with few exceptions…from the pilgrims to the abolitionist moralists… (Jefferson being the major dissenter)…our people now believe science has left agnosticism as the only respectable intellectual position. This is the unspoken credo of the media and the jocular late-night talk show hosts who are so very-very-very clever and cynical. They all imply: Freud, Marx and Darwin have triumphed over the believers.
We elected the president we deserve because he is cool. But also because he is black. That makes us feel good. Take a look at the slouching, grinning guitarist on the Moosejaw show (Jay Leno). Seeing him strum, seeing them defiant…seeing Obama trotting up the steps…makes us feel so tolerant, filled with a smarmy hypocritical version of brotherly love to replace morals. Obama’s church was involved in only two absolutes: hate whitey and where’s the largesse for us? But media have made us forget that. Now we all feel so good about ourselves-because of him.
How enlightened this is next to the old bygone verities. You know the bromides our grandparents believed in: man’s inclinations are to seek the good, including the highest good, eternal happiness with God (so out of date)…to preserve himself in existence (no room for death with dignity)…to preserve the species i.e. to unite sexually (no room for homosexuality)…to live in community with others (no reference to sexist mal-authority)…to use his intellect and will to know the truth and thereby to make his own decisions (smacks of God).
By this 5-pronged standard Christianity is largely out-of-date. When we enlightened ones discard it we all feel liberated, although we don’t care to recall that it presents massacre of the unborn, intolerance of people who love the old ways, destructive pride in ourselves, the feeling that, after all, there is nothing worth dying for, a kind of insidious pleasure in confronting the pitiless nature of man. Time was when the unifying creed was America’s culture; but these times are different and America has no significant culture but rock music. It has great appeal; barbaric appeal to sexual wantonness, undeveloped and untutored. The young understand that rock has the cadence of sexual intercourse and they revel in the industry that develops the taste for orgiastic state of orgasm associated with sex, celebrating puppy love and polymorphous attractions that shield them from traditional shame. The good thing is that it is LOUD. Obviating much of shared speech that Aristotle insisted is the only common ground. No-no. What is real is the grunt, bodily contact, a throwback to cannibalism and gladiatorial combats.
The credo that succeeds moralistic absolutes is rock and increasingly the self…longing for a world without constraint…antinomianism…which will overcome the ancient codes that restrict and supplant them with free sexual expressing, anarchism as what happened years ago at Woodstock, the drug-induced mining of the unconscious and giving it free rein. What we strive to become in this new society is like Mick Jagger…now old but still very-very relevant…passion’s plaything, a demon satyr, unencumbered by modesty. Yes that is what we have become. And we have just elected our Messiah who with his stylish black wife showed no concern about unwanted infants born from botched abortions dying in hospitals’ dirty linen closets. No-no-no, we don’t want to think about these things. Better to concentrate on the living…not dying things…education, for instance: not moralizing to children against their instincts but linking between what they feel and what they want to be. That’s education, not Western Civ.
That’s why in this new age of Obama we will all become even more tolerant…overcoming the shibboleth that culture should preserve the dominance of heterosexual white males…overturning the old dogma that American culture should be Eurocentric…denying that this toleration shall mean the slowing of economic productivity, the vulgarization of scholarship. What do we do when we kind of recognize there should be a religion of some sort but reason by itself can’t find it? We turn to us. “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” Does that strike a chord? We turn to creative, artistic man-man passionately involved in Self: Pascal’s wager no longer based on God’s existence but in our own desire to be happy. We have seen it with our own Dear Leader: by innate human greatness man can attract followers, organize whole societies, provide inspiration and devise a culture neither reason nor religion can supply. Yes we ARE the change we’ve been waiting for!
Items of change: taxes on the rich go up (hooray!) the income threshold which defines “rich” goes down (media don’t report this: boring). With tax rates on incomes over $250,000. And-another hooray!-95% of all Americans will get a tax cut! Many of them pay either very little or no federal income taxes at all so they will get a demi-grant (hooray!). Meaning that everyone who pays payroll taxes will get $500. (Hooray!). If you federal income tax is less than $500 you’ll get the balance via government check (Hooray!).
On judicial appointments, the Supreme Court will likely change harshly liberal, harshly pro-abort in one fell swoop with the mortality tables (John Paul Stevens, 88; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75; Antonin Scalia, 72; Anthony Kennedy, 72; Stephen Breyer, 70; David Souter, 69). With the Congress the first step will be reinstituting the “Fairness Doctrine.” As the nasal-Brooklyn accented Chuck Schumer says: what the hell, if you favor censorship against porno, to be consistent you must accept a radio station’s requirement that liberal talk shows are equally billed with conservative ones. The fact that liberal talk shows don’t sell is immaterial: apply affirmative action.
Tocqueville predicted the end will come with a soft form of despotism to suffuse society in rules that sound good, look good…look so calm and relaxed like our new president-elect…that we will accept “servitude of the regular, quiet and gentle kind.” That’s us. 1789 to now…where we make the big change.
We made the big decision last night. The men and women who died in Iraq trying to support democracy? We’ll be out of there quick and their sacrifice will be forgotten. Servitude of the state of the regular, quiet and gentle kind…the kind we don’t notice as we all sway our bodies to the banal rock music in simulated intercourse. We have a young president who is trim and athletic. Cool and calm. Speaks so comfortingly. Spread of nihilist attitudes is the logical extension of self-indulgence, prosperity that has weaned us from God. Nietzschean nihilism has now become nihilism American style.
Knowing Barack’s in charge makes us feel so good…so good…so good. Hooray for us.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Chicago Daily Observer Editorial Board
Over the past few days,1 Corinthians 12:12-14 has been on my mind. The disapointment of this election and what it says about our failures (those of us who do attend church and actively practice our faith) to evangelize-especially by our example: our families, friends/foes etc, is IMO something for us to consider.
I awake to the dawn of a fascist dictatorship.
Democracy has died to thunderous applause.
I am deafened to the “yes we can” quips
The blackjacks of the Panther claws.
I aam no longer proud of America.
Tom, your unwavering bias aside, your unwillingness to afford Obama the opportunity to either succeed or fail is telling. I’ve completely written off your viewpoints, as they are inflammatory, ill-founded, and blindly partisan. You are a disgraceful human being, driven only by your hatred of what you perceive to be radical ideology that will plummet our nation into the doldrums. Good riddance.
This is a great article!! And just before I found it, I was thinking to myself – in a sad but reality accepting way – “Really, I suppose this is the president the people of our nation deserve.” Thank you for articulating the wisdom that shouldn’t be so subtle, but nonetheless is subtle for many people. Further, in the future we should not be surprised by a continued and increased courting between Secular Humanism and Islam (really, the ‘perfect’ or most evolved ‘natural’ religion that, from a sociological perspective, does not contain the divine revelatory characteristic to the degree of Christianity.) Viva Veritas! Viva Cristo Rey!
Given the reaction of Mr. “Whatever” can we get 10 more articles like this please?
JBP
Indeed it is Santiago!
Likewise, President Elect Obama won the most impressive and sound victory in recent American History and commands the respect and dignity due him as President and Commander in Chief.
Tom Roeser speaks solid truths and with the dinity and courage of true gentleman – GOP or Democrat.
Partisans need some fresh air and exercise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNlRNV9trQ
I am certainly excited about what an Obama presidency will bring to our beleaguered nation. He is very articulate to be sure, and seemingly has the intellect and composure to be successful in the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth. However, I am a little skeptical about his level of experience, alleged ties to unsavory organizations and religious affiliations. I voted for him, primarily because of bitterness at the incompetence of the Bush administration. I remain disenfranchised with America so far in the 21st Century, and came across a political graphic that does a fairly good job in capturing this sentiment.
http://www.cafepress.com/usa21stcentury
As Saint Ignatius Loyola and other spiritual masters teach us, it is never good to make a big decision working from desolation (bitterness, fear, pain etc.) Too bad that many of our countrymen and countrywomen have apparently chosen to act out of resentment rather than some other higher motive. No judgment of the person intended; only judgment of the act.
Candidate Obama promised the unwashed masses a new utopian society. In announcing his victory, President-elect Obama backed off on his campaign pledges and asked us to lower our expectations. He did not even have to take office before disappointing his followers.
Tom,
step away from the microwave. Putting your oversized head in there won’t work.
This country was founded on bedrock Christianity? Franklin might be surprised to hear that. As would Fred Flintstone.
As Pat Hickey suggested, or more likely as I twist his words, step outside and take a deep breath. Then say “President Obama” three times while clicking your heels.
Yesterday was a great day for America. I suspect that Obama will govern more moderately than his critics suggest. Of course in the Roeserian world view all that matters is being anti abortion and on bended knee before the teachings of pre Vatican Two Catholicism.
Franco is dead. The torture regime of Bush/Cheney is coming to an end.
Unlike some of you I wish President Obama well because we are all in this together. Those of us who have “doubt” and those of us who claim ownership of “verite”.
“Of course in the Roeserian world view all that matters is being anti abortion and on bended knee before the teachings of pre Vatican Two Catholicism.”
Mr. Fahey:
You may want to check out this commentary by Fr. Barron…
The Pathos of Liberal Catholicism
By Rev. Robert Barron
http://www.wordonfire.org/articleDetail.aspx?ArticleNo=18
buying election $700,000,000
plus $300,000,000 overseas ileagal
priceless fluf/coverup free press
Ohio 250,000 + fraud votes
actual results 2,667,468 BHO
2,461,198 JM
206,207 ? win
how about a 40,000 loss for starters
fraud lies truth squad scarry
shall we talk VA/NV/FL
the simple fact without theft
outspent 8 to 1
with fauning press
Jonh won……
Many of the “social issues” to which the author refers are issues that are of obvious (moral, social) importance to many Christians. However, I would suggest – as is my experience – that even many atheists and non-christians agree about particular Natural Law issues; e.g., abortion and homosexuality. Today, it is unpopular to speak of a Natural Law. However, again in my experience, both reasonable atheists and reasonable people of faith can, and often do, agree on certain elements of Natural Law: abortion is gravely immoral, etc. One ought not attack Christianity or Christians (or someone’s particular form of religiosity) in order to try to uphold and defend a position regarding some social issue. Rather, it would be more appropriate to speak to the specific issue.
This article is narrow-minded, sarcastic, ignorant, and hate-promoting.
To take any other stance than Agnosticism is arrogant and ignorant because it ASSUMES a lot, and PRESUMES a lot.
Anyone who claims to know the mind of God is just delusional and self-serving. How more arrogant could someone get?
Tell me how many inches of rainfall there is annually in Washington State. Can you do that off the top of your head? I bet you can´t. So if you can´t even tell me how many inches of rain falls on Washington State every year, how can you possibly presume to know the mind of God? That´s not only arrogant, it´s anti-God. You would reduce God´s Creation to a simplified human mythological story of [ insert any religion here ] ? It´s just plain absurd. And dangerous.
CREATION IS A MYSTERY, not some children´s book fable or some simple equation. CREATION IS LARGELY UNKNOWN, not clearly or definitively defined in any way by human knowledge.
Do you honestly believe God created all of Creation, all of it´s mystery and complexity and unknown beauty, just to have it be reduced to the simple story of some invisible old man who lives in the sky? Ridiculous!
Someone once said, “Religion is a defense against the experience of God.” I would say that is right on target. And religion, any religion, is, in general, a divisive, damaging, ignorance-enhancing tool used by those in power to manipulate and control us. Doesn´t matter which religion, they are all used for these purposes.
As Joseph Campbell once said, “The god [or gods] you believe in is the god [or gods] you deserve.” The author of this article chooses to believe in the gods of hate and fear and ignorance.
If the author of this article, and those people who agree with him, would prefer to believe in a spooky incompetent father figure who doesn´t give a sh*t [that invisible old man in the sky] instead of an actual human being here on earth who is now the new President-Elect of this country, that´s fine. But don´t expect reasonable minded people to believe you have anything founded on “bedrock.”
Obama may turn out to be just as bad as all the other previous politicians before him. But to condemn him before he has even had a single day in office is not only immature partisanship, it´s dangerous and weak minded, exhibiting a heart full of fear and hate instead of love and hope.
Here´s a simple quiz to see where your mind is at. Is it…
(a) God Bless America
or…
(b) God Bless The World (or all of Creation)
…?
If you value (a) and not (b), may God save your soul. If you say (b) there´s still hope. And hope for this beautiful world we share.
Let´s stop this partisan bickering and political hysteria, stop focusing on being right, and instead focus on what good things we can accomplish together.
Peace.
Peter, If we “stop focusing on being right,” how can we ever focus on the “good things?” How can we even know what those “good things” are? Is it futile to seek truth? No, I don’t believe so. Regarding the mind of God, although we will never fully understand God (otherwise we’d be God,) while on this earth we can know something of the mind of God because he has revealed it to us – both in the natural world and via divine revelation. Even if one outright rejects the latter, a strong case can also be made for the former.
I thought it was “God Damm Americkka”
the light bringer has divided and torn asunder all that was good.
Now go and prey (sic) to the god of “O”
Peter, what if we pick both (a) and (b)?
Mr. Theis,
It is hardly any of the above -unless of course you choose to have it that way.
Thinkers(Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim & etc.) who base their thoughts on absolute truths have been fending off sophistry like yours for centuries. Orestes Brownson cuffed the fashionable in the 1860’s with this:
‘. . .assuming the fact to be as we state it, what have the enemies of religion to offer us ? In general terms, they offer us man, represented in the family, native land, and universal brotherhood. M. Michelet opposes to the Church simply, if we abstract his verbiage, family and native land. These are the means and end of man’s existence. These are M. Mi-chelet’s religion. ” France,” he says, ” is a religion.” These he would substitute in the place of religion, and he would educate solely in reference to them. He opposes the Church because she insists on educating for God, and subordinating family and country to God, and teaching us they are good and holy only when sought or loved for God’s sake. Others add to family and country, or, one may almost say, substitute for them, universal brotherhood, and place the supreme excellence of moral character in Philanthropy. These are philanthropists, and test all things by their schemes for the general improvement of mankind. They do not ask, Is the Church divine, is she from God, commissioned by God himself to teach us what we shall believe and do ? But they ask, Is she an abolitionist, a teetotaller, a radical, a socialist ? Now we certainly respect family, native land, brotherhood, and hold them to be sacred, when elevated by religion to her own order, and referred to God as the end for which they are, and are to be loved and sought. So viewed^ we have as much to say in their favor as have the Antichristian reformers themselves, and perhaps more too. The madness of these reformers does not consist in their devotion to them, but in their devotion to them for their own sake, as detached from God, the end for which they are, and made to be ends in themselves.’
Hegelian twists like your’s was huge with American sophists like Emerson and Thoreau. Clever, but essentially second raters. Atheist genius Bertran Russell barely mentioned them and only as an after thought to his American friends in his History of Western Philosophy.
I agree with “whatever”. Obama is the president we deserve after 8 years of a republican leadership.
now the first order for the new president is to close the Skyline, hit them where it hurts BHO !
Now we must come together under the newly elected Leader of the Free World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdM8PDu6VMg
Isn’t B.O. part white? Why does the media consider him the first black president? Is it because of the one-drop rule? Im serious, who can answer tell me?
Actually he has distant Irish relatives. So they were celebrating in Dublin yesterday. Of course the damn Irish celebrate everyday!
The race issue shouldn’t matter. Does it too many people of all races and beliefs. Yes.
Is he black? Trust me if he wanted to marry one of my female relatives some of those extolling his Irish heritage would soon change the tune on their bagpipes.
It’s the American Dilemma. Actually the human dilemma. Hatred and fear of “the other”.
We definately got the president we deserve … God help those of us who didn’t vote for this evil man. America will soon become a third world country, sad
Thomas F. Roeser, who obviously seems to think he’s a religious person, is also hypocritical.
Besides the fact that it is GOD’S job to judge people, not Roeser’s or mine or anyone else’s, and that it is GOD’S job to judge people on “Judgment Day” and not the job of every day humans here on Earth, to judge or hate is actually directly against the principles laid out in the Bible by Jesus.
Here are a few of the teachings of Jesus, which Roeser obviously seems to have forgotten:
LOVE YOUR ENEMIES
Matt. 5:44; Matt. 26:52
FORGIVE IF YE HAVE OUGHT AGAINST ANY
Mark 11:25
LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU
John 15:12
CONDEMN NOT
Luke 6:37
DO GOOD TO THEM WHICH HATE YOU
Luke 6:27-28
DO NOT JUDGE, OR YOU TOO WILL BE JUDGED. FOR IN THE SAME WAY YOU JUDGE OTHERS, YOU WILL BE JUDGED, AND WITH THE MEASURE YOU USE, IT WILL BE MEASURED TO YOU
Matthew 7:1-2
SO IN EVERYTHING, DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO TO YOU
Matthew 7:12
BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS, FOR THEY WILL BE CALLED SONS OF GOD
Matthew 5:9
BLESSED ARE THE MEEK, FOR THEY WILL INHERIT THE EARTH
Matthew 5:5
Where’s the love, non-judgment, acceptance (“Condemn not”) of all the people in God’s Creation? Where’s the Christ in your heart and soul, Mr. Roeser???
To #16 Santiago: The only true way to find some decent amount of truth, in my view, is to (a) not assume anything, (b) question everything, (c) recognize that God revealed far more mystery to us than any definitive anything. Start there and we’ve got a chance. Thus, for me, the most spiritual path anyone can take is that of agnosticism. The only way, I feel, to get any sense of the mind of God is to be open to all possibilities.
Peace.
To #18 GIL: To choose both (a) and (b) is, I will grant, healthy. Or moreso than just (a). Though I do find the whole blessing of things strange. God created everything, right? So why the need to bless it? From the moment Creation was created, was it not blessed simply because God made it? So why the need to bless it again and again? Seems to be some strange kind of control-mechanism built in there as in: If we behave good and well we will receive God’s blessings. If we don’t, we get… what? Cursed? The whole thing seems psychologically strange to me. It is very much like the old discussion about determinism. I would say since God put us here on Earth to live our lives here that we simply focus on doing good, being good, and in these ways BE the blessings upon each other and our world.
To #19 Pat Hickey: I specifically substitute nothing. Being open and saying “I don’t know” is specifically NOT substituting anything for anything. It’s simply being open.
By labeling me a “sophist” you reveal yourself. Sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. I am in no way seeking to deceive anyone by simply being open to the mysteries and possibilities of creation or Creation. In fact, your assuming you know my positions and how my mind works, and presenting arguments based on such viewpoints, I would say, is deceptive.
Agnosticism is specifically NOT Hegelian, in my view. I specifically do not advocate propositions (theses) nor counter-propositions (antitheses), but recognize there is far too much inbetween and beyond such notions.
Also, you presume I value MAN over GOD. To point out what seems to me to be the hypocrisy and weak thinking of absolutism (part of our addiction to certainty) is hardly to say I am pro-Earthly to the detriment of pro-Spiritual.
I just happen to personally find most religions to be mythological oversimplifications.
‘Agnosticism is specifically NOT Hegelian, in my view.’
Pete,
Thought as Old Country Buffet?
‘I just happen to personally find most religions to be mythological oversimplifications.’
Or as Old Plato would say, ‘Back to theCave, Son! Time to watch them shadows!’
Why does Obama have as one of his top advisors, Zebigniew Brezezinski? Isn’t he that old guy who was the advisor of Mr. Christmas, Pol Pot?
To #25 and #26 Peter. Yes, it is good to be open to possibilities, Peter. However, is it not legitimate to cease being agnostic – at least in part – once a person believes, through his or her reason, to have found truth (whether or not it is truth is another question.) Further, how can we be open to ALL possibilities when the world and its possibilities are already limited before we even enter upon the discussion; particular realities in life are already “as is” (“as are”) before we even begin to try to evaluate or interpret them, and we cannot change such realities no matter how hard we may try or wish. My point is to confirm both subjective and objective realities of existence. Regarding a different issue, is it legitimate for the author (or anyone else, for that matter) to judge acts and social realities (as opposed to judging a person or the person’s soul, i.e. condeming the person.) My point here is to make a distinction between condemning a person (which Jesus taught was wrong) and judging a reality (what any and every rational person does every day.) Is it wrong to make a distinction between good and evil, right and wrong? If one says it is wrong to make such a distinction, that person himself condemns himself…no?
To #29 Pat Hickey: Thought as “Old Country Buffet”? Nope. Thought as something actually dynamic, changing, etc. Does X = X? Well, philosophers have been arguing over that one for ages. Does “X” even exist except in some ethereal abstract realm? If two things can’t exist in the same space at the same time, how can any “X” be equal to “X”? It’s interesting to think how the Library at Alexandria was set on fire and numerous thinkers other than Plato and Socrates and handful of others went up in smoke. What a tragedy to critical thinking and dynamic thought.
Peter, regarding the blessings discussion, humans aren’t simply spirits (like angels could be or are, depending on your belief in angels.) Rather, we humans are body and spirit in time and space; that is just our nature. Of course, there are various definitions of the word “blessing.” Maybe that’s part of the problem. In Spanish, you may know, it is “bendicion.” This is not exactly the same as “blessing” in English. Oh well, language is analagous. Because of our imperfect or limited natures and abilities, in order to “simply focus on doing good, being good, and in these ways BE the blessings upon each other and our world,” we need reminders. This, “reminders,” is one possible interpretation and definition of a “blessing.” Of course, it is not the totality of “blessing.” Nonetheless, sort of like continuing education or greetings, we need “blessings” to recall our great mission, not only to exist but to be of good will. In fact, you yourself further the definition of “blessing” by stating that we can BE blessings; in my opinion, this too is legitimate and is no false analagy of the word “blessing.” Of course, others may see it that way. I do not know the full origins of how we got to the word “blessing” in English; in fact, noone possibly can. Nonetheless, English or otherwise, I can imagine that some ancient or even prehistoric said something like “may good things happen to you” or “may you have good fortune” or “may God be on your side when you go fight a battle [just or unjust].” Whatever the case or definition from which we work, you are correct to say that all creation is (made) good. However, we are human, and it is easy to forget this. Further, evil (the privation of good) does exist; does it not? I am not pushing conformity for conformity’s sake; nonetheless, is not all hate of neighbor – especially if manifested through some action – a lack of love for that same neighbor? My point is that this earthly life is not the simple and complete fulfillment of good, as any murder victim’s family could tell us. My further point is that, though we are limited as humans, we have a potential for growth – especially emotional and spiritual growth. In this sense, a blessing can go beyond a natural reminder to ourselves of goodness; it becomes, also, a petition to God to make us like himself in some specific aspect (since God alone blesses, and we only petition the blessing.) Again, the reason we often petition more than once is because that mode is part of our nature: gradual growth, bodily beings, etc. Of course, as you correctly note, hopefully this does not become compulsive behavior. If it does, such is only a proof of our limited and imperfect natures (further proof, in my opinion, of our need of a spiritual-psychological-emotional redeemer.)
If one denies that “X” equals “X” isn’t that like asking the question (without intent of blasphemy) “Could God make a burger so big that he couldn’t eat it?” or “Could the Universe be so big that it couldn’t contain itself?” or “Could my car not contain my car?” Those questions are simply illogical, because the person who sincerely asks the question either (A) doesn’t understand rational logic, (B) doesn’t appreciate the unrevealed aspect of mystery, or (C) doesn’t appreciate the limited capacity of the human mind vis-a-vis the mind of God. In other words, the question just doesn’t make sense to philosophy (which, as opposed to theology, is the seeking of truth by starting from the human perspective.) Therefore, such questions are irrelavent.
Can’t the phrase “equal to” sometimes be a substitute for the phrase “is?” Therefore, maybe these supposed “two things” are in the same place at the same time. And when it can’t be a substitute for “is” then “equal to” is referring to things of a different sort of ontology or being — beings such as theoretical numbers, etc. My point: Not only is “X” equal to “X” but “X” IS “X!!” No?
To #31 SANTIAGO (part one):
My intentions and focus is to always be agnostic, since all knowledge is always changing, as all things are. There are no complete answers, there are only limited temporary answers if one provides a narrow context.
About the idea of reality being already limited, I would say that our ideas and mental constructs are limited from birth — through what we are taught is true and not true. Have you read John Taylor Gatto’s book “Underground History of American Education”? He was New York City’s “Teacher of the Year” 3 times, I believe, and 3 times NY State “Teacher of the Year.” Well worth reading.
And regarding your point about making judgments being necessary, I would say a tentative “yes.” The problem lies in the fact that most judgments are so immensely mired in either limited or false preconceptions that it gets dangerous quick.
For example, the terms “good” and “evil” are not healthy terms, I feel. They are blanket oversimplifications. (It’s like calling someone a “Muslim” as if that were a bad thing; there are bad radical people in ALL religions).
The same goes for terms like “right” and “wrong.” That is dialectic 1/0 kind of thinking, which just doesn’t fit reality. Al of us do “good” and “bad” and everything inbetween. Does it necessarily follow that I advocate no morals or ethics at all because all is relative? No. When a work of literature is looked at, for example, there is not only one interpretation, only one literal symbolic meaning. It is rich, complex, diverse, even at times paradoxical and contradictory. That’s life. And the best anyone can do is muddle through life because it is always changing and always more than we can see.
To #31 SANTIAGO (part two):
The point I’m making is that should not be about being definitive but about being approximate and open. Something I tell my students to do is to go observe someone they don’t know for 5 minutes and try to imagine who they are (what they like to do, what they believe in, etc) and then interview them to see how accurate they were. 70 to 80% of the time they are inaccurate. Some of their judgments are also usually accurate.
Yes, we need to make judgments just to get through life, but one must be wary of them and open to being wrong. That’s the point.
The problem I have with the author of this article is not that he made judgments, but the reasons that seem apparent behind those judgments. And the poor reasonings that ooze out it all over the place.
I voted for Obama, and now I wish I had followed my gut and voted for Cynthia McKinney. I do not like at all so far the appointments Obama seems to be making — it is NOT real change. It doesn’t move beyond the left/right paradigm at all, from what I can see.
Will Obama close Guantanamo Bay? Will he get us out of Iraq AND not start any other wars? Will he repeal the Patriot Act and abolish Homeland Security? Will he stop this enormous banker bailout heist? (see Naomi Klein’s recent article: “Real Change Depends on Stopping the Bailout Profiteers”) Will he truly invest in and push green technologies big time? We’ll see, but based on his appointments thus far? (Timothy Geithner, for example, is an ECONOMIC HIT MAN who should never be even considered for the position of Treasury Secretary).
So there are PLENTY of things to critique Obama on. But what clearly drives the critiques the author of this article puts forth are not, in my view, well-reasoning nor healthy.
As Einstein once said, “The problems of the world will not be solved by those who create them.” This applies to our very stale and ubiquitous trains of thinking.
Peace.
To # 30 NANKER PHELGE: Excellent point! Obama’s connections with Zebigniew Brezezinski are indeed disturbing.
Peter, You just contradicted yourself by saying that “all knowledge is always changing.” If that is the truth that you believe, then you are not always agnostic. This is because you just established a truth for yourself. Correct?
To SANTIAGO: You wrote…
If one denies that “X” equals
“X” isn’t that like asking the
question (without intent of
blasphemy) “Could God make a
burger so big that he couldn’t
eat it?”
… and a bunch of similar thoughts. My answer is, yes and no. Yes in the sense that these are all questions that occur to us and should be asked. No in the sense that they are different issues, of course.
To # 39 SANTIAGO: I don’t feel I contradicted myself at all. Agnosticism includes within it the variable of change. Agnosticism recognizes that all knowledge is always changing. As well, “Truth” and “Knowledge” are such loaded and unclear terms for so many reasons that to answer your question is like trying to describe the meaning of a blade of grass or a sunrise.
SANTIAGO: You make the point that human beings have “potential for growth” and I agree. My view is simply that in order for human beings to grow we need to break out so many conditioned paradigms. Perhaps you might be interested in tons of info I have put up on a blog, designed not to preach but simply to provoke thought and discussion and perhaps some new ideas: creativeleisuretime.blogspot.com
Peace.
Well, I suppose there are differing views by people of what constitutes false analogy and what constitutes true analogy. My practical question is: Is it possible for society to agree on generally accepted parameters for what constitutes a false or true analogy? If so, how?
“Truth” is a loaded term? Is that like Clinton asking the question “What’s the definition of ‘is?’” …haha
I certainly agree that we often times need to “break out [of] so many conditioned paradigms.” My question then becomes: Are there some paradigms out of which we ought NOT to break? (Maybe, in your opinion, the paradigm of Agnosticism.)
Peter, are not preconceptions necessary in order to make judgments? How can you say that many judgments are based on “false preconceptions?” I thought you were an agnostic? Now you know truth? Maybe your not an agnostic. As some people say, we all believe in something. Variable of change? Aw, come on. Either you believe in Agnosticism or you don’t. This doesn’t mean that you have to be actively accepting it and thinking about it every moment of life. In an analogous way, I am a Christian. Just because I do not actively think of Christ every moment of my life does not mean that I cease to be a Christian, does it? Are you an agnostic? Is that your truth? If so, you have “established” a principle…something that you accept/know to be a truth. No?
Santiago, you’re being silly. Take care.
How so, Peter?
Santiago,
Agnosticism is a guideline at best. And again I repeat: “truth” is a very vague and subjective thing. So it is silly to ask me a question like “Is that your truth?” as if agnosticism is something to be pinned down. Kind of like what Buddhists call “the way,” though I don’t adhere to Buddhism or any religion.
No need to go beyond this point in discussion with you because I already know we very likely have differing viewpoints on that, too. And I’ve said all I feel necessary to say on this page.
Peace.
Truth is vague? You seem to use the term as if it is not a vague concept, and rightly so; that’s probably because it also has a very objective aspect in addition to its subjective aspect. No?
to the Philosophy majors.
So how do even know that we know something, unless we have some sort of underpinning faith to judge it by.
I recently sw a story about a man blind from 1 year till adult, who got his sight back.
He sees but does not see because his brain never developed to process the sight information.
Therefore the faith/prejudging that the brain does allows us to actully see. That in adition to that scientific American had an article that we actully see it the future by micro seconds to guess what will happen by what we have already processed, and past experiance.
therefore even the act of sight is faith. so why not in Christ?
I’ve thought of that occasionally, and its true: even life takes a sort of “natural faith” in order to live. Some may think that’s a contradiction of terms, and at first sight it may appear to be. But you’re correct, everyday we place this natural faith in something, such as our vision.
Leave your response!
Dream Candidate: Alexi Giannoulias
Recent Comments
Archives
Recent Posts
Tags
Subscribe
Most Commented
about cdo