May the realization of His incarnation sustain you and bring you peace.
The road to hell is paved.
The concept of exceptionalism is a logical fallacy. It relies upon the validity of special pleadings and relativism fallacies to present an argument essentially invalidating (or more rightly redefining) ethics. Ethic is; that I may take no action that others may not also take (in other words, if everybody did as I am proposing (x), would the world be ok). It is the core principle by which the world does not devolve into chaos; and it is one of the most crucial losses of the past century. Ethic rules out modern capitalism; for while I may enjoy the fruits of my labor, as anyone else also may, I may not reason that since given the probability that not all will endeavor to make a profit (some are lazy), I may make a profit. If I do, I have reasoned fallaciously as to my exceptionalism. If all made a profit, we'd have to keep printing money (or various other solutions for "creating" wealth or currency) which would thus decrease the value, and would make it so nobody makes a profit. Therefore it is unethical to make a profit.
Exceptionalism only works at the expense of someone else. Eventually we cause tremendous suffering as a result of our exceptionalism, and we must justify our success in the face of the injustice we have created (and a hundred generations before us). Thus the problem of religion then lies not with God, but with man - for fixed in the soul of man is something transcendent, (call it knowledge of the Holy) but human beings seek to cloud the individual transcendent experience by laying claim to it, and explaining it away, we make all sorts of fantastical stories up to justify our actions to others. This not only employs fallacy, it is Blaspheme.
The argument for why we should ignore the transcendent within, and listen to the voice of others, is that if one does not have a complete grasp on the subject (usually meaning "as complete a grasp as 'I'") that one has not any business grappling with the subject. This is an argument for exceptionalism. Simply because I have a hard time doing differential equations, I am certainly still able to do some mathematics. Further, I am not allowed to indulge in relativist fallacy (claiming exemption from the laws of physics for example) simply because I cannot do the math involved to work out the laws of physics for myself. Gravity holds me down regardless of my minds finitude in expressing it Mathematically. This argument (or series of arguments) is often used in Post modern culture to describe "intellectualism" whereas it is merely drawing a subset of relativist and special pleading fallacies known as elitism. Thus the post modern "redefining of terms" undermines the substance of any thought - which of course is the goal, to be circumlocutory so as to avoid saying anything at all, while appearing deep and thoughtful to the uninitiated.
Exceptionalism only works at the expense of someone else. Eventually we cause tremendous suffering as a result of our exceptionalism, and we must justify our success in the face of the injustice we have created (and a hundred generations before us). Thus the problem of religion then lies not with God, but with man - for fixed in the soul of man is something transcendent, (call it knowledge of the Holy) but human beings seek to cloud the individual transcendent experience by laying claim to it, and explaining it away, we make all sorts of fantastical stories up to justify our actions to others. This not only employs fallacy, it is Blaspheme.
The argument for why we should ignore the transcendent within, and listen to the voice of others, is that if one does not have a complete grasp on the subject (usually meaning "as complete a grasp as 'I'") that one has not any business grappling with the subject. This is an argument for exceptionalism. Simply because I have a hard time doing differential equations, I am certainly still able to do some mathematics. Further, I am not allowed to indulge in relativist fallacy (claiming exemption from the laws of physics for example) simply because I cannot do the math involved to work out the laws of physics for myself. Gravity holds me down regardless of my minds finitude in expressing it Mathematically. This argument (or series of arguments) is often used in Post modern culture to describe "intellectualism" whereas it is merely drawing a subset of relativist and special pleading fallacies known as elitism. Thus the post modern "redefining of terms" undermines the substance of any thought - which of course is the goal, to be circumlocutory so as to avoid saying anything at all, while appearing deep and thoughtful to the uninitiated.
This is not how it's supposed to work
No matter what they tell us, sitting back and waiting for the government to take care of it, isn't how it's supposed to work. In a thousand situations, the fact that "nobody got involved" proves that Chivalry, and Honor are dead. Our principles of "Non-violence" enable us to become castrated wimps, while we have deferred to the dangerous principles found in philosophies such as "Calvinism", which have remove all ethical responsibility from our conscience.
And we aren't really non-violent, thats just our excuse to have enshrined the right of self defense, as opposed to the defense of others. (even the NRA would approve that message) We have embraced self preservation at the expense of the divine imperative. There is a Categorical law. "Do unto others as thou wouldst have them to do for you."
And we aren't really non-violent, thats just our excuse to have enshrined the right of self defense, as opposed to the defense of others. (even the NRA would approve that message) We have embraced self preservation at the expense of the divine imperative. There is a Categorical law. "Do unto others as thou wouldst have them to do for you."
Logica
It is often erroneously judged, that to prove the very falsity of the idea of deity, supreme God, one must simply look at the world. Surely an all powerful God is not so impotent as to be unable to stop all suffering, and therein, this God must surely be malevolent since he doesn't. The only alternative in the mind of the simple reasoner is that the divine simply cannot exist.
Upon close inspection I see here the parts of a disjunctive syllogism, and yet they appear upon the surface to present an airtight argument. If God is neither malevolent, nor impotent, he must not exist. BUT in my very equation, the argument if A, then B or C or D, cannot have any one of those values be "then not A" since the major premise of the argument rests upon "if A". This among other crimes against logic, are committed every day a thousand times by people of higher learning, their advanced degrees lending credibility to their lack of understanding.
I would not claim to have mastered the art and science of Logic, and although Kant claimed it to be the only completed science, it is surely the most neglected and least understood. How then can a physicist, a biologist, or a Chemist weigh in on matters of metaphysics - simply by stating this dysfunctional syllogism as scientific fact. Even the supposedly brightest minds fall victim to this trap, and so it remains necessary to continually raise awareness to the logical problem of all existence.
This is by virtue the domain of the meta-physicist, a science of fact by the way, nearly destroyed by a couple of generations of people who think they are philosophers after having smoked a joint, or had their minds opened by hallucinogens. Intoxication is simply the numbing of our own mind by whatever means, and the fact that we get so lost in incestuous ramblings propagated by the institutions, will lead us to lose all advancement, despite technology, completely disproving Hegel and leading to a new dark age, if it hasn't done so already.
Most men upon investigation of existence, stop with the aphoristic; such as "I think therefore I am" the human mind, so numbed cannot long endure the discomfort of question. The exercise of knowledge hurts the atrophied muscle, and so we'd rather not. The existence of God, far more. Why if I cannot contemplate my own existence would I contemplate anything beyond myself, and yet we do ask questions for which we are incapable of answering: why is their so much violence, so much drug use, so much dysfunction. We cannot and will not see that this is because we have neglected the fundamental exercise of the brain.
Truth, is nothing more than the result of all logic. Some in the past have sought to Deify reason as a result, and yet, this is not the seat of the divine, only its means of revelation. Reason that does not work, cannot be used to arrive at the precise destination with any reliability, and so what I would define as a "classical education" (and I understand that I am engaging in post modern semantics here) includes a fundamental understanding of epistemology, and a grounding in Socratic method.
The educated man must have a grounding in metaphysics, not just the ability to recite the great authors, but the ability to comprehend, spurious writings on the subject, and the endurance to hold up under their lectures. He must also have the foundation of Socrates, who dared to ask why, and why, and why. For while subjective foudationalism is in fact the root of most modern thought, it is exceedingly useful to understand, from whence these ideas come, and not just accept the labels of cultural capital, embraced by those who seek to lead the whole congregation of society down the gentle slope. A man must know how to write, and in this, find his own voice; all too lost is a mans voice in the culture of quotation and reference, plagiarism must not be a matter of law but of honor, and that is another of the vital elements of noble man (I say not Nobleman, but the noble man).
Let this not be a complete list of the elements of a thorough education, but let us call it classical in the sense that it is the grounding received by Samuel Morse, by Benjamin Franklin, by John Locke, by Albert Schweitzer, by those heroes of time gone past, of an age when Hegel dared to speak of the progress of man.
To the ontological question, we now turn, and of it we see limitations in the reasoning, questions begged but never expressed, who says God must be either impotent, or malevolent, or non existent? be those the only possibilities? and who has defined malevolent as the causing of suffering, and who has defined impotent as...
If we surmise a preposition: God could have made a perfect world, we have a logical answer (at least based upon our foundation of the understanding of perfect): He didn't.
Now our answers to why he didn't may be because he is malevolent and enjoys watching the suffering of mankind as a form of munera. OR he could be impotent to do anything about the sufferings of man, but who then who would this God be? Anselm defined the office of God through the reasonable statement that X is the top being, if "God" is subordinate to the actions of man, then Man is God, and it is true that we are evil... this is a possibility, but this merely proves ontologically the evil of man. The final option open is not the non-existence of God, as this necessitates a fallacy by defining D as "not A" so to speak. option D must be rather; that he did not want a "perfect world" as we have defined perfect.
This option leads to further question, what does this God want if not a "perfect" world and what other ideal beyond "perfection" might there be, and why might it entail the sufferings of man. The simple answer comes back time and again to the question of choice. A divine being sought it necessary for us to have choice, and so whatever is meant to be accomplished it necessitates the choice of man, freely and openly.
The Logic then disallows any form of Atheism, The higher being is either a Deity, or ourselves, and should be rightly labeled "God" This is the central question of existence, will we exist as though we were God, or as though the divine is God. It is a question of the Everlasting Yes or the Everlasting No...
Off to read Carlyle
Upon close inspection I see here the parts of a disjunctive syllogism, and yet they appear upon the surface to present an airtight argument. If God is neither malevolent, nor impotent, he must not exist. BUT in my very equation, the argument if A, then B or C or D, cannot have any one of those values be "then not A" since the major premise of the argument rests upon "if A". This among other crimes against logic, are committed every day a thousand times by people of higher learning, their advanced degrees lending credibility to their lack of understanding.
I would not claim to have mastered the art and science of Logic, and although Kant claimed it to be the only completed science, it is surely the most neglected and least understood. How then can a physicist, a biologist, or a Chemist weigh in on matters of metaphysics - simply by stating this dysfunctional syllogism as scientific fact. Even the supposedly brightest minds fall victim to this trap, and so it remains necessary to continually raise awareness to the logical problem of all existence.
This is by virtue the domain of the meta-physicist, a science of fact by the way, nearly destroyed by a couple of generations of people who think they are philosophers after having smoked a joint, or had their minds opened by hallucinogens. Intoxication is simply the numbing of our own mind by whatever means, and the fact that we get so lost in incestuous ramblings propagated by the institutions, will lead us to lose all advancement, despite technology, completely disproving Hegel and leading to a new dark age, if it hasn't done so already.
Most men upon investigation of existence, stop with the aphoristic; such as "I think therefore I am" the human mind, so numbed cannot long endure the discomfort of question. The exercise of knowledge hurts the atrophied muscle, and so we'd rather not. The existence of God, far more. Why if I cannot contemplate my own existence would I contemplate anything beyond myself, and yet we do ask questions for which we are incapable of answering: why is their so much violence, so much drug use, so much dysfunction. We cannot and will not see that this is because we have neglected the fundamental exercise of the brain.
Truth, is nothing more than the result of all logic. Some in the past have sought to Deify reason as a result, and yet, this is not the seat of the divine, only its means of revelation. Reason that does not work, cannot be used to arrive at the precise destination with any reliability, and so what I would define as a "classical education" (and I understand that I am engaging in post modern semantics here) includes a fundamental understanding of epistemology, and a grounding in Socratic method.
The educated man must have a grounding in metaphysics, not just the ability to recite the great authors, but the ability to comprehend, spurious writings on the subject, and the endurance to hold up under their lectures. He must also have the foundation of Socrates, who dared to ask why, and why, and why. For while subjective foudationalism is in fact the root of most modern thought, it is exceedingly useful to understand, from whence these ideas come, and not just accept the labels of cultural capital, embraced by those who seek to lead the whole congregation of society down the gentle slope. A man must know how to write, and in this, find his own voice; all too lost is a mans voice in the culture of quotation and reference, plagiarism must not be a matter of law but of honor, and that is another of the vital elements of noble man (I say not Nobleman, but the noble man).
Let this not be a complete list of the elements of a thorough education, but let us call it classical in the sense that it is the grounding received by Samuel Morse, by Benjamin Franklin, by John Locke, by Albert Schweitzer, by those heroes of time gone past, of an age when Hegel dared to speak of the progress of man.
To the ontological question, we now turn, and of it we see limitations in the reasoning, questions begged but never expressed, who says God must be either impotent, or malevolent, or non existent? be those the only possibilities? and who has defined malevolent as the causing of suffering, and who has defined impotent as...
If we surmise a preposition: God could have made a perfect world, we have a logical answer (at least based upon our foundation of the understanding of perfect): He didn't.
Now our answers to why he didn't may be because he is malevolent and enjoys watching the suffering of mankind as a form of munera. OR he could be impotent to do anything about the sufferings of man, but who then who would this God be? Anselm defined the office of God through the reasonable statement that X is the top being, if "God" is subordinate to the actions of man, then Man is God, and it is true that we are evil... this is a possibility, but this merely proves ontologically the evil of man. The final option open is not the non-existence of God, as this necessitates a fallacy by defining D as "not A" so to speak. option D must be rather; that he did not want a "perfect world" as we have defined perfect.
This option leads to further question, what does this God want if not a "perfect" world and what other ideal beyond "perfection" might there be, and why might it entail the sufferings of man. The simple answer comes back time and again to the question of choice. A divine being sought it necessary for us to have choice, and so whatever is meant to be accomplished it necessitates the choice of man, freely and openly.
The Logic then disallows any form of Atheism, The higher being is either a Deity, or ourselves, and should be rightly labeled "God" This is the central question of existence, will we exist as though we were God, or as though the divine is God. It is a question of the Everlasting Yes or the Everlasting No...
Off to read Carlyle
Things we all do
There are things we all do that build among others a contempt for our profession, just think of the last lawyer joke you heard. I remember having a client who was a big shot psycho-analyst, and because of her advanced education and intellect, thought that she didn't need an architect or builder in on the design of her home. Then there are friends who can work in biotechnological labs who think, "bi-jove I think I'll build a deck this weekend" or "I can replace the heater core/fuel pump, it can't be that difficult" When we (yes we) are inevitable rescued by those we might pejoratively refer to as our "simpler kin" they are gracious (usually) and save us from ourselves.
Intelligence and Academia are not, alternatives to wisdom, and discernment.The flip side is also true, that "normal folk" look down on academics, because of their lack of common sense in other areas of life, and so distrust useful information. Maybe we all need a little bit more common sense.
Intelligence and Academia are not, alternatives to wisdom, and discernment.The flip side is also true, that "normal folk" look down on academics, because of their lack of common sense in other areas of life, and so distrust useful information. Maybe we all need a little bit more common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)