Monday, June 8, 2020

Dealing With Heretics

I wish to deal with my most distinguished contemporaries, not personally or in a merely literary manner, but in relation to the real body of doctrine which they teach.

Heretics, Gilbert K. Chesterton (eBook)

Too many quotes by Chesterton have come my way for me to continue to relegate his work to some future date.  I am starting with Heretics; here he is criticizing various writers of his time – his time being more than one hundred years ago.  One can get an idea of what Chesterton means by heretics through the following:

I am not concerned with Mr. Rudyard Kipling as a vivid artist or a vigorous personality; I am concerned with him as a Heretic—that is to say, a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine. I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic—that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong.

Well, he isn’t shy.  In his first chapter, he begins with an examination on the importance of orthodoxy:

…whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist.

I read this and put it in the context of much of my writing: something foundational must come before liberty is possible.  Read Chesterton’s sentence and tell me if you can make “anything peaceful” libertarianism work if such differences matter, and matter deeply.

Do the differences matter?  Perhaps not, if we believe that economic trade is sufficient to hold a society together.  But I look around at the most broadly affluent society in the history of the world and see nothing but growing tension, destruction, and a complete loss of meaning.  If economic trade is sufficient, then Steven Pinker is right: what are we complaining about?  Yet we are complaining, more than ever.  Why?  What’s missing?

Chesterton wonders: Does it matter when we hear the pessimist toss out the throwaway line, “life is not worth living”?  The “old Liberals,” as Chesterton calls them, “removed the gags from all the heresies.”  By doing this, they believed all sorts of new religious and philosophical truths would be discovered.  This is great, as long as one believes that there is no such thing as cosmic (objective) truth, or if there is it is rather unimportant.

Yet this is the world we see around us.  Chesterton wrote these essays in 1905, a decade before the calamity that gave meaning to the destruction of the old order.  He was able to see and write such things at the time when the West was at the peak of its (classical) liberal experience.  He sees the dwindling of the ideals of liberty and order in the previous decades.

We are exhorted to consider the horrendous actions of the Church during medieval times – men cross-examined for preaching some immoral attitude.  Yet Chesterton offers us the example of Oscar Wilde, flattered by his admirers in the nineteenth century for preaching immoral attitudes, who then subsequently…

…broke his heart in penal servitude because he carried it out. It may be a question which of the two methods was the more cruel; there can be no kind of question which was the more ludicrous.

At least the Inquisition was not hypocritical.  Kind of like citing from Martin Luther King has now been labeled a dog-whistle.  This hypocrisy, this loss of ideals, has resulted in a weak people:

When everything about a people is for the time growing weak and ineffective, it begins to talk about efficiency.

Isn’t this the standard measuring stick for many, including many libertarians?  We need no foundation; we just need to maximize efficiency.  But vigorous organisms, as Chesterton puts it, do not speak of their processes; they speak of their aims.  With the loss of foundation, we have lost the possibility of blasphemy:

Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the day in a state of some exhaustion.

Well, good thing Chesterton didn’t live to see the day that Thor came out of the closet.  But I digress.  Blasphemy is a lack of reverence for anything sacred; when reverence is lost, eventually nothing is sacred.  What we revere today is worldly wisdom.  But what is considered wise when there is no foundation?  How are we to judge?  Do we allow the wise to also judge their wisdom?

I see that the men who killed each other about the orthodoxy of the Homoousion were far more sensible than the people who are quarrelling about the Education Act.

At least these men of the fourth century were fighting over what was to be considered holy.  What are men killing each other for today?  The moderns are after religious liberty without understanding what is meant by “religious” or “liberty.”  At least the priests of old took the trouble to define and explain their concepts, what it was that was meant.

Conclusion

Chesterton ends this first chapter with an analogy.  A commotion rises on the street; many influential men want to knock down a lamp-post:

A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—" At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down.

The people then rush the lamp-post and pull it down in a few minutes, congratulating each other on their efficiency and practicality.  But they each had different reasons for pulling it down: some wanted the bulb, some the iron, some wanted darkness in which to practice their evil deeds.

So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

We speak of liberty, equality and fraternity in the dark.  We speak of life, liberty and the pursuit of property or happiness (take your pick) without the vaguest notion of the meaning of these terms and without understanding what is the necessary precondition to realize the meaning.

As C. S. Lewis would offer a few decades later:

We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.

46 comments:

  1. CS Lewis wrote:
    "We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise"

    From Quran 6:125:
    "So whoever God wants to guide - He expands his breast to [enable] submission to Him; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky"

    BM wrote:
    "We speak of life, liberty and the pursuit of property or happiness (take your pick) without the vaguest notion of the meaning of these terms and without understanding what is the necessary precondition to realize the meaning."

    Exultation without grounding, and without respect for the roots. Willingness to cut oneself off to achieve "lift off", whatever the cost, not looking back at what is left behind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. australia-for-ron-paul:

    From Quran 6:125:
    "So whoever God wants to guide - He expands his breast to [enable] submission to Him; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky"

    BM: That is a nice passage.

    Sorry, BM - I have to differ with you. It is not a nice passage. Ironically, in a post on heretics, you compliment a counterfeit. George Floyd recently lost his life which started out as a scuffle over passing a counterfeit bill - no competing with the Fed.

    What that quote from the Quran actually says (misquoted above - deliberately? I don't know) is:

    "So whoever Allah wants to guide - He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe."

    https://quran.com/6/125

    First, it is Allah - not God. Allah is a made-up god. Not the only true and living God.

    Second, He expands his breast to [contain] Islam, not to enable submission.

    Third, notice he left off the last sentence: "Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe."

    Counterfeiters do their best to make the phony look like the original. Don't be fooled by them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mister Spock, Islam translates to "submission." So I don't see a meaningful issue here.

      As for the last sentence, God hardened Pharaoh's heart to the point of the death of all the firstborn of Egypt...It is difficult to read Romans 1 without coming away with the same sentiment that God defiles those who turn away from Him. (God gave them up, or turned them over...)

      As to Allah vs. God. I get it.

      It is quite interesting to me that in almost all substantial cultures and traditions, there are many similar concepts - as CS Lewis noted in the Appendix to The Abolition of Man. There are truths to be found in all of them.

      All men are in search of God. As a Christian, I believe that the only way is through Christ. What that means for those who do not open the door when He knocks and what God does with such as these, I leave it to Him.

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr Spock,

      You wrote:
      "BM: That is a nice passage.

      Sorry, BM - I have to differ with you. It is not a nice passage. Ironically, in a post on heretics, you compliment a counterfeit."

      There's no accounting for taste of course... even as taste and Truth are important not to conflate. Let's deal with them separately then.

      1) Perhaps we should open up the floor for the three of us to speak of why we find the passage I translated "nice" or otherwise, to better understand each other. A poetic and meaning assessment of the poetic aesthetics more than anything else.

      2) Can you please clarify to what/whom the charge of counterfeit is being laid at. We can then go through the evidence with a bit more equanimous wholesome clarity.

      Delete
  3. Peace friend,

    Language and cultural crossings are not simple endeavours.

    "Islam" means "submission to God". Allah was the term used by Arabic Christians (maybe they still do) for God as well. Classical Arabic is like Chinese in distinction from modern English, terms are understood to be richer when they are left veiled and slightly unclear. Like the connections made by poetic imagery.

    Unfortunately for modern mindsets, they become an inkblot as well, for us to see what we want to (negatively and positively, equally dangerous) at a snapshot, to bolster self identifications.

    "Counterfeiters do their best to make the phony look like the original. Don't be fooled by them."

    Agreed, especially as the best infiltrator is a "Machurian Candidate", or internally unintegrated Dr Jeykll and Mr Hyde. The (however conflicted, impatient, prematurely certain) sincerity is an excellent guise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To my understanding, Arabic speaking Christians still use "Allah" for the same meaning as English-speaking Christians use the word "God."

      Delete
  4. My gratitude for your wise words, and allowing such discussion to air sir. Blessed indeed are the peacemakers - sometimes that means preventing some things being heard, sometimes that means allowing them.

    BM wrote:
    "All men are in search of God. As a Christian, I believe that the only way is through Christ. What that means for those who do not open the door when He knocks and what God does with such as these, I leave it to Him."

    I feel you are a man of principle and great integrity. More power to you and your journey, and for all of the West that is regaining the Traditional view away from Renaissance valorisation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BM wrote:
    "Read Chesterton’s sentence and tell me if you can make “anything peaceful” libertarianism work if such differences matter, and matter deeply."

    Fight is required. Not unlimited warfare to be sure, rules of conduct are not a paradox when in battle situations, perhaps the purpose of graceful restraint in chivalry and nobility is precisely to help keep one's head whilst under fire. Certainly pre-moderns understood this very well, on both doctrinal and practical levels.

    Actually it is known the heart of Chinese martial arts is the fidelity to and refinement of the proper rules of conduct themselves. Manners not only maketh man, they win wars, maybe especially in the face of overwhelming force. The best of Ghandi comes to mind here, a "conquering serenity" perhaps.

    A Faithful and loyal Heart only shows its true colours when tested, to help distinguish it from mere unearned certainty. Without Orthodoxy and Laws/Guidances that must not be broken (even if we can be forgiven when we do), there are no such tests.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder what is meant by "anything peaceful" libertarianism. If that refers to the NAP, then its refutation must of necessity be a defense of aggression.

    But often I read that the NAP is not enough. Not enough for what, I wonder? It is more than enough as a political principle. I find nothing wanting in it. I need no further political details. Properly done, politics is a flyer, economics a brochure, philosophy a short pamphlet.

    It is evil that requires great long treatises to weave the wool for pulling over eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two examples.

      https://fee.org/articles/anything-peaceful/

      https://www.amazon.com/Anything-Thats-Peaceful-Case-Market-ebook/dp/B00XWAZ03M


      Libertarianism as a political principle is reasonably sufficient, but at the edges it depends on some generally accepted norms.

      Libertarianism is not sufficient for liberty. It requires the proper cultural soil. The concepts that under-gird liberty as Western (classical) liberals understand the term developed in a certain cultural context, and no other. Why? Describe that cultural context.

      Delete
    2. Dear BM,

      One of the areas I'm coming to appreciate is how much chivalry, strength of character and willingness to fight (if not aggress) for one's beliefs is needed to protect cultural soil. The trick is making sure this chivalry is not mistaken as all there is to this cultural soil. If there is no place to feel deep belonging (except for its simulation in a bar), men lose the will to fight very quickly, whatever their stated ideals.

      That's why I think we have become such weak characters overall against COVID19 policies. Yes we need to more vigorously fight for Orthodoxy (principle) of various forms, but what is that which supports and nourishes that ability above mere wilfulness/"work ethic"? And has that been cherished sufficiently in the modern world?

      Answer that question, and there will be more graceful and gracious women supporting "hard" Libertarianism I think. And there will be less Western MGTOW/SJWs overall to boot.

      PS. Do you see the Renaissance as part of that necessary cultural context and soil? Sorry if you have likely already covered the elsewhere, I'm still ploughing through your writing slowly.

      Delete
    3. Regarding the Renaissance...I don't see any such period / event / transition as wholly good or bad, so don't misunderstand when I offer the following as the window on my general view. It is from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, when he considers how man lost his sense of freedom within a sense of religious responsibility:

      "This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. …the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him."

      It is from his Harvard University commencement address; the text can be found online.

      Delete
    4. When B. Mosquito writes that "Libertarianism is not sufficient for liberty. It requires the proper cultural soil", I think he has perfectly summarized what I disagree with.

      My position is that Libertarianism IS the proper cultural soil.

      The term 'culture' refers to the beliefs and practices of a statistically significant portion of a population. To adopt a position of non-aggression requires and implies an appreciation of private property and private property is at the root of all rational morality.

      Therefore the theoretical positing of a population that was - somehow - libertarian and yet missing some essential for liberty seems to me to be more of a contradiction in terms than anything else.

      To say things such as, "Libertarianism isn't enough. There also needs to be a work ethic." is missing the point. Libertarianism is a political position. Work ethic is not. When promoting a fundamental political principle it should not be required that we shift to another subject.

      If I stated the principle that the best drink was pure water, it would not be valid to reply, "That's not enough! We also need food!" Of course we do, but I was talking about the best drink. Food would be a change of subject.

      Delete
    5. "Therefore the theoretical positing of a population that was - somehow - libertarian..."

      John, this is where you miss the mark. Libertarianism (classical liberalism) didn't spring from whole cloth. It grew in a specific place in a specific time for specific reasons.

      People don't coalesce around ideas; they live in a world of narrative. What was the narrative that gave room for the ideas of liberty to grow?

      This is the second time I am asking you the same question. Quit avoiding it. If you think it is irrelevant, you know nothing of history, sociology, or culture.

      So please don't tell me AGAIN that you disagree with me - I have heard you. Just answer the question. Or not. But quit repeating yourself.

      Delete
    6. I did not claim nor imply that libertarianism sprang from whole cloth. Just the opposite - I said that it would only come about in a culture where personal property rights were respected.

      You ask me AGAIN to tell you the "cultural context" within which libertarianism arose (and then hint that I am avoiding your question). And I respond by telling you AGAIN that libertarianism IS the cultural context. If you are asking what came before individualism and personal property, the answer is collectivism. If you are asking what caused libertarianism, I would only say "certain thinkers", having free will. If you ask why did some turn toward individualism before others, I will answer that I do not know, I bet no one else knows, and I don't think it is relevant to the question of the adequacy of libertarianism to the cause of liberty.

      One writer I know of guesses that warrior clans were first to adopt an individualistic view because they were competing to see who could be the toughest warrior. Such questions, in my view, are invitations to engage in historical speculation and are a change of subject from the question of the the sufficiency of libertarianism for liberty.

      You are one rude little bully, ordering me to answer your questions and stop repeating myself. People repeat themselves when you fail to read what they wrote, so they re-word it for you. That's just natural.

      Delete
    7. John, I understand: a respect for private property (libertarianism) requires a culture that respects private property (libertarianism).

      Thank you. You don't need to tell me this again. I read what you wrote.

      Delete
    8. No, I did not say that Libertarianism requires a culture that respects private property. I said it IS that culture.

      Perhaps you might ask "What culture must (should, might, did) precede a Libertarian culture. I also gave my answer to that: I don't know and I bet no one else does either. All the reading I have done on that appears very speculative, but seems to point at invading warrior rather than agricultural cultures as the birthplace of individualism.

      Delete
    9. "I don't know and I bet no one else does either."

      John, it is an empirical question, requiring no speculation. I have written extensively on it, as have many others who have examined the ideas of individual liberty and property rights.

      Jacques Barzun writes: "The truth is that during the 1,000 years before 1500 a new civilization grew from beginnings that were uncommonly difficult….showing the world two renaissances before the one that has monopolized the name. …the Germanic invaders brought a type of custom law that some later thinkers have credited with the idea of individual freedom.…no rule was held valid if not approved by those it affected. …Anglo-Saxon law…defined crime literally as breaking the peace."

      What is not in this quote, but is well-known in the history, that it was a mixture of this Germanic culture and Christianity that birthed what we know as liberty and property rights.

      There is much more to this story and why things went as they did, but this is sufficient for now.

      Delete
    10. Bionic, it is speculative, not empirical to site historical writings, and mistaken to claim that something is "well known" in history; at best, it is widely believed. But we can certainly look at the ancient Jewish bible and see that they disapproved of stealing, so it hardly seems accurate to credit Christianity with the invention of property rights.

      Further, Christian nations - especially Catholic - have fallen to communism and socialism at an alarming rate. I believe that Christianity, with its promotion of self-sacrifice and faith - is not very supportive of individualism at all, but rather encourages a passive acceptance of authority that is not healthy.

      Christianity has dominated much of the globe for many centuries, yet our world is fast becoming a totalitarian mess. I say Libertarianism is the answer, not Christianity; and I say that those two are not pulling humanity in the same direction - that they will (and do) interfere with one another.

      Delete
    11. John, there is too much to reply to here. I will offer:

      1) All men are fallen, even Christian leaders
      2) Communism, socialism, totalitarianism: these are all fruits of the Enlightenment, not Christianity. That there are many Christians who support these only demonstrates that they are also children of Enlightenment political thought.
      3) There was no such thing as a state until Westphalia, or maybe Augsburg. There is a reason that there was no state before this, and the Church was at the heart of the reason.
      4) I have written too much on what is needed from Christianity to support liberty - all consistent with Christianity and all consistent with the non-aggression principle as the proper theory regarding punishment and self-defense. If you are interested in this, I will provide links, but be prepared to read a lot.
      5) It will take an institution to support a wish of liberty. What institution do you suggest?

      Delete
    12. BM quoted re: the Renaissance:
      "This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. …the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him."

      I understand, I think. Without being too simplistic and reductionist, I guess I would like more attention to the degree to which that soil is tainted, hence this version of "liberty" itself (and hence modernity in general) is as well. The Perennialists like Rene Guenon, and even now those like Wolfgang Smith, give a very interesting answer to that.

      PS. At the danger of being a collectivist "Virtue-Signaller", may I formally apologise to the West from the Muslim world in regards to the bad parts of the Renaissance, for Ibn Rushd's (whom the Muslim world on the whole rejected, for good and ill) major contribution to that development!

      Delete
    13. John Howard wrote:
      "Christianity has dominated much of the globe for many centuries, yet our world is fast becoming a totalitarian mess. I say Libertarianism is the answer..."

      I sympathise, and agree in essence. May I submit however that the reason that women are on the whole quite turned off by "Libertarianism" is that they need a bit more of a nurturing and embodied "cultural soil" to want to hang around.

      I believe instead that "Libertarianism" is the aspect that protects the said soils, and cannot be the soil itself.

      For some, this nurturing cultural soil will be found in Christianity and the Traditions therein (esp. as these carry many Western pagan root traditions therein). For Western versions of liberty to find any sustainability amongst those of this ancestry, this may very well be a requirement.

      For others, Christianity has overall been a powerful destabilising force for their connection to their own ancestral pagan cultures and soils:
      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/no_author/on-the-necessity-of-roots-in-principle/
      ...hence again, my sympathies for:

      "I say that those two are not pulling humanity in the same direction - that they will (and do) interfere with one another."

      ...if not agreement. The Devil is in the details.

      Delete
    14. John Howard wrote:
      "so it hardly seems accurate to credit Christianity with the invention of property rights. "

      For the current world conception of property rights though, I think we can.

      It is indeed not the only one, as Indigenous Australians (land cannot be owned for example, yet their culture prevents the "Tragedy of the Commons" very well) are wont to remind everyone.

      Delete
    15. Bionic, your write:

      "1) All men are fallen, even Christian leaders"

      I regard this as a part of the Christian doctrine of shaming and humiliating everyone to make them more easily ruled. Pride is a strength, not a sin. Humility is a weakness, not a virtue. This idea - of unearned, inherited guilt - is one of my main objections to Christianity. Christianity encourages the victims of tyranny to be humble and self-sacrificing which only makes them more easily ruled.

      "2) Communism, socialism, totalitarianism: these are all fruits of the Enlightenment, not Christianity. That there are many Christians who support these only demonstrates that they are also children of Enlightenment political thought."

      All of those "isms" are merely modern terminology for the most ancient of patterns: that of a small gang of parasites, surrounded by their enforcers, robbing and ruling everyone else in their mapped-out territory. This was not invented during the enlightenment. It dates from as far back as we have any written record. To me it is not important when the modern iteration was developed nor is it important when it began to be called the state. That pattern is a steady, established fact through all of human history as far as we know.

      "5) It will take an institution to support a wish of liberty. What institution do you suggest?"

      I don't accept your premise, or perhaps I misunderstand "institution", but I am convinced that only one issue is at the root of all political (and moral) debate: private property. That debate needs to be won in the minds of at least a sizable minority or I see no hope for civilization. The parasites are on the march - as they always are - and what is required is to change many minds about what is right and what is wrong.

      So I guess I see no need for an institution, but rather for a debate and for the elevation of personal property rights to be considered the greatest of rhetorical importance - which includes the right of self-defense against those who claim the right to enslave, extort, counterfeit, and monopolize - which are the chief activities of the ruling parasites throughout history.

      One important aspect of modern times, though, may finally break the ancient pattern. It is the communication revolution, which we can date to the printing press or television or the Internet. There the debate is fully on and authority is everywhere under attack, as it should be. Authority = parasite. This is why our current culture war is escalating so rapidly. The parasites are doing everything they can - in desperation - to shut down the free-wheeling debate between liberty and power, between individualism and collectivism, between property and stealing, between free trade and monopoly. They will eventually lose that debate but they may do great damage before they fall because parasites are always desperate.

      Delete
    16. John Howard wrote:
      "but I am convinced that only one issue is at the root of all political (and moral) debate: private property. That debate needs to be won in the minds of at least a sizable minority or I see no hope for civilization."

      I think you are pretty close to the mark. However, so long as this is the only area we are willing to work on, slamming this fact home over and over without consideration of the other-than-logical reasons many do not accept, it is a waste of time. Those that hear your message and can logically accept it will run away all the harder. Never underestimate rationalisation, nor disparage it for its role in protecting vulnerabilities in the psyche/soul, before you get any chance at fair hearing.

      If that soil/root/foundation is healed however, I suspect we will be surprised how quickly people will regain their senses, spontaneously and without tremendous effort.

      All the while, whatever sizable majorities do or do not do, those communities and families with roots/soils healed and whole will find peace (and please God, if He Wills) no matter what happens.

      Delete
    17. John, I have purposely let this sit for a few days. I am left to wonder what standard of "good" one holds - from whatever source he derives it, even if entirely self-generated - that one can believe he has never fallen short of the standard that he holds to be "good."

      I think if one believes that he has never failed this standard, there is little chance of a fruitful discussion. Kind of like how none other than the acolytes could have any discussion (albeit a shallow one) with Ayn Rand.

      That all men are fallen (from whatever standard one holds) is so empirically verifiable, it is beyond question. When I think of people who believe they don't fall short of a standard of good...well, we see them rioting on the streets today, teaching in the universities, taking high positions in the State.

      In any case, I am quite sure no one can change the views of one who is perfect. I thank you for the time.

      Delete
    18. Bionic, your reply manages to modify the term "fallen". In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this term refers to an inherited guilt derived from a disobedience of God back at the beginning of time and passed down through the generations as if guilt can be transferred (the false premise at the root of the crucifixion story).

      But now you are redefining "fallen" to mean any failure to fully practice some rule one has adopted for one's life. It is true that we all make mistakes, but it is not true that we all choose to do evil. Defining "perfect" as never making mistakes so as to deny perfection to any human is to set a false standard of perfection. To then use that false standard to apply the term "fallen" with all of its biblical implications of massive and inherited sinfulness is not reasonable.

      And to finish by declaring that no one can change the mind of one who is perfect is not logical. Those who are perfect (have never chosen evil) can be perfectly open minded and ready to change their minds when presented with sound reasons to do so. That is part of their perfection.

      Human perfection does not mean never making mistakes - that would be a false standard to apply to humans. It reminds me of the stupidest bumper sticker I ever saw: "Think you're so smart? Try walking on water!" The game being played is to set a standard beyond the possibility of humans to attain so that you can sneer at all humans for failing to attain it. This is the game of claiming god is omniscient. (The epistemological flaw in that is that unless you are a god yourself, you would have no way to know that.)

      I have long suspected that the love of god is merely a thinly disguised contempt for humanity, but since psychology is pseudo-science, I have no way to know that for certain.

      Delete
    19. John,

      I won’t rehash the entire conversation, but I think you are confusing the idea of original sin with the idea of “All men are fallen,” as I wrote. While the two are closely related, they are not the same thing. What you are describing in your reply is Original Sin:

      “Original sin can be explained as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.””

      https://www.christianity.com/wiki/sin/what-is-original-sin-meaning-and-consequences.html

      The “unearned, inherited guilt” that you write of is Original Sin. It is a separate issue than “all men are fallen.” There is a distinction, even to the point where the Eastern Church fathers did not think sin was passed on (albeit, all men fell short – i.e. were fallen) whereas the Western Church fathers thought both that the guilt from Original Sin was passed on, and, therefore, all men fall short.

      All men are fallen – to whatever standard a reasonably healthy man might choose. This is true, whatever one believes about the concept of Original Sin.

      Delete
  7. Oftentimes it takes paragraphs to refute or explain or even comment on a single sentence. I don't have the time, so a few quick comments.

    BM: Mister Spock, Islam translates to "submission." So I don't see a meaningful issue here.

    Technically, no. But an average reader will not equate them - I think that person would think in terms of the religion, not the meaning of the word.

    BM: As for the last sentence, God hardened Pharaoh's heart to the point of the death of all the firstborn of Egypt...It is difficult to read Romans 1 without coming away with the same sentiment that God defiles those who turn away from Him. (God gave them up, or turned them over...)

    I figured someone would make a similar comment, so I didn't attempt to elaborate on the difference with Christianity, but I'm worried about that quote from the Koran being used to buttress the idea of killing the infidels.

    BM: As to Allah vs. God. I get it.

    Not sure about that, but we'll come back to it.

    BM: All men are in search of God.

    And yet, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:10,11 Paul quoting Psalm 14:2-3

    I think a better statement might be Pascal's: "This he [man] tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”

    That includes false religions like Islam.

    BM: As a Christian, I believe that the only way is through Christ. What that means for those who do not open the door when He knocks and what God does with such as these, I leave it to Him.

    That means they will be separated for eternity from Him. The verses are there. Else why would Christ make the point that He is THE way, THE truth, and THE life, not one of many ways?

    Now back to the God/Allah thing. In a reply to our friend in Australia you say,

    BM: To my understanding, Arabic speaking Christians still use "Allah" for the same meaning as English-speaking Christians use the word "God."

    That Arabic Christians making a gross theological error in equating the use of the word Allah for the Christian God is no reason for us to follow suit. Be assured that Muslims do not make the same mistake. When they use the word Allah they know exactly what they mean.

    This is no different than when cults like the Mormons or JWs use the exact same words that Christians do - God, Jesus, Holy Spirit - but mean something entirely different by them. Allah is not the God of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mister Spock, your first two comments above demonstrate the value in understanding terms and meanings. You seem to agree, with my comments, but are worried that others might misunderstand our new guest. Perhaps. But no one will understand anyone without discussion.

      We can go around blindly, or we can work for understanding. The US is full of people who believe that the only way to win the war on terror is to kill every Muslim terrorist, which inherently means, ultimately, kill every Muslim. The biggest cheerleaders for this killing are Christians.

      Searching for God: Paul also spoke to the Greeks in Acts 17. We see all around us - and again, I offer the appendix from the Abolition of Man - the referenced philosophers / cultures were searching for something transcendent. That they didn't know what it was or got it wrong is a different issue.

      I read the same verses about Christ being the way - I wrote the same thing. Yet God is both merciful and just. He must make some decision regarding the mentally incapacitated, those killed in the womb, those who have not heard, and those who have been led astray. I am not in a position to determine where, in that continuum, God will draw the line.

      About the Arab Christians...the word Allah predates Islam in the Arab world, and was used by pre-Islamic Arabs (both Christian and pagan).

      Delete
    2. BM, you and I have very few disagreements - politically, economically or spiritually. (Unless you are a Catholic, which I haven't figured out yet. :-))

      BM: Yet God is both merciful and just. He must make some decision regarding the mentally incapacitated, those killed in the womb, those who have not heard, and those who have been led astray. I am not in a position to determine where, in that continuum, God will draw the line.

      But that wasn't what you said. You specifically referred to those who rejected Him when He knocked on the door.

      BM: About the Arab Christians...the word Allah predates Islam in the Arab world, and was used by pre-Islamic Arabs (both Christian and pagan).

      Irrelevant. No matter who used what name/word/term when, Allah is not the Yahweh/Jehovah/Father/Son/Holy Spirit of the Bible.

      Delete
  8. Peace friends,

    If I may bring things back to the topics a bit, and go a bit wider to include these personal interactions and what they highlight about it, for a second.

    The problem with the emphasis on Orthodoxy as exemplified by Chesterton is how to maintain it (and hence Principle in its worldly manifestation), without causing constant “triggering”, projection, infighting, sectarianism and splitting of communities and generations away from each other.
    Disputationalism and backbiting seem to correlate with orthodoxy insistence; hence the "1960s good manners" mode often degenerated to "just don't talk about politics, religion and sex", further down from there to “let’s throw away principles altogether”.

    And this is the reason Bionic Mosquito's general angle on “cultural soil” underneath a form of principle like “libertarianism” is so vital. Whatever the theory, how do we instantiate it as an individual and as a community consistently in practice, and in our choices in every moment?

    I would like to propose again that whatever the cultural, ancestral and/or religious source of these, a basic foundation in good manners and hospitality is absolutely vital to keep both orthodoxy and let’s call it “embodied sustainable community”. An overly Masculine emphasis on “Truth is all we need, no matter how much it hurts”, and any disparagement of the Feminine “feeling safe in belonging, Home and Hearth, and succor from those hurts”, does seem to be the Western inheritance currently. As the global monoculture does its work, the East is slowly but surely losing this too, and because we rely on this veiled Feminine aspect more than the West for coherence, in some ways we are degenerating faster.

    Good manners is what will allow those of different basic faiths, but also different denominations within the same broad faith, to co-operate against common threats and towards common goals. To live side by side within single communities or as separate ones as required, harmoniously trading and interacting, sharing, learning from each other.

    A sign of the over Masculine emphasis is disembodied, overly rationalized talk, that ignores (denies) the likely emotional reactions of certain angles and modes of expression of others, and then ignores (denies) the likely emotional reaction of oneself when the side does indeed so project back. Hypocrisy and inconsistency with Principle then becomes more or less assured.

    Thoughts gentlemen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Good manners is what will allow those of different basic faiths, but also different denominations within the same broad faith, to co-operate against common threats and towards common goals.”

      All of this must be understood. It is more than good manners, as it also incorporates that those around you share other, very important, values. These must come before any form of peaceful cooperation or respect for property and person is possible.

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/get-off-on-my-lawn.html

      Further, street gangs demonstrate good manners as far as that culture is concerned. They see common threats and they have common goals. They even cooperate within the gang.

      So, there remains a problem. Define “good.”

      Delete
  9. BM wrote:
    "All of this must be understood. It is more than good manners, as it also incorporates that those around you share other, very important, values. These must come before any form of peaceful cooperation or respect for property and person is possible."

    This is a very important point, but this is where the East can highlight something modernity may have lost - the highest good manners can be used actively, aggressively even, and can and does win contests against bad manners. It takes a while to unpack this, please consider this as a possibility.

    The Feminine in the West may remember this better. Think the conversation battles of a Jane Austen, where brute vulgarity making manifest underlying unearned certainties shames people into withdrawal. No threat, no penalties. But it does take the very non-discursive, Feminine skill of knowing "the enemy" and what he wants more than he does himself.

    Of course, a lot of this working well does rely on an ability to be shamed... and when an individual is happy to cut off relationships with their own Peoples at the drop of a hat, it is indeed much harder to "defeat" someone's bad manners. It is still possible though I believe. In the long term at least this is so, because the person constantly "winning" but cutting themself off lives a completely miserable lonely life, and their kids do not follow them.

    BM wrote:
    "Define “good.”

    I don't think it is necessary or useful to do this by it's own bootstraps. Over-reliance on definitions is a post-Enlightenment trap, of discursive solipsism and blindness as way to push forward an agenda, that the pusher may not even be aware of (all the better for the agenda). It's "incomplete completeness" tending stuff.

    What we can do however is detect lack of internal consistency and thus bad faith in regards to Principle. In this sometimes the street gangs are indeed more Virtuous than the police, or even the normal every day suburban neighbour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS. Again back to topic, this relates to how to effectively bring "heretics" back into line, in more than theory.

      I submit to you this will never (but for rare exceptions) be through the blunt force of discursive reasoning (even as absence of contradiction on this mental logical level is important). It will all but always be via the promise and appeal of a more peaceful and internally integrated life, in Submission to and full Hearted Love of a vision of Principle that can contain all of the seeming contradictions.

      A better life and more harmonious family, as enabled and manifest by an individual with the highest levels of manners, no matter the conditions and trials. This is the way Christianity outclassed the degenerating Western paganisms, surely, despite the strong ancestral loyalties.

      Delete
    2. "Over-reliance on definitions is a post-Enlightenment trap..."

      I don't know what is meant by "over-reliance." How about just "reliance"? If we cannot agree on the definitions of words...well, that is a post-Enlightenment trap.

      Words had definitions before the post-Enlightenment, and even before the Enlightenment. We have had meaningful definitions of "good" for at least 2000 years.

      Delete
    3. BM wrote:

      "I don't know what is meant by "over-reliance."

      An example of the opposite is when pondering over what one person means, to then investigate in good faith, instead of stopping short at term perception differences where one's own unexamined certainties and self identifications lie. Typically this is where one attempts to be rude, to cause the other to react the same, so the conversation can end with unexamined certainties intact.

      This is easily distinguishable via Beautiful manners standards, even when those standards/definitions are quite different between interacting individuals, and much more difficult to see happening when using "definitions of the good" only. Perhaps this blindness is the point though.

      As that fake but useful Aristotle quote goes, "Entertaining [i.e. being courteous, well acquainted host to] an idea, but not necessarily accepting" - Beautiful manners as based on the feeling of what it is to give and receive good hospitality, a sacred (Feminine, often pagan connected) Tradition in all cultures. Think of how ludicrous it would be for a guest or host to play their parts with any grace by trying to verbally agree to definitions of hospitality first... "over-reliance" then as nerdy autism. Like today's permission based courting.

      BM wrote:
      "We have had meaningful definitions of "good" for at least 2000 years."

      Another way of putting it, as Erazim Kohak would agree, is the Western Tradition had definitions of the good (orthodoxy perhaps) side by side with consistent and equally important instantiated embodied practice of the good (orthopraxy). Post-Enlightenment, due to factors he identifies in our relation to the natural world as well as in intellectual developments (which he sees spring especially out of William of Ockham via Ibn Rushd/Averroes, again my Muslim apologies..), the West tended towards seeing the value of orthodoxy only, or at least a bit too much. Hence over-reliance, leading to discursive thought based hypocrisy everywhere, including with the Postmoderns that threw definitions away. Another false dualism of the post Enlightenment West, in reality two sides of the same coin.

      Please let me know if further clarification is useful to you.

      Delete
    4. "An example of the opposite is when pondering over what one person means, to then investigate in good faith, instead of stopping short at term perception differences where one's own unexamined certainties and self identifications lie."

      Yes. I was investigating in good faith. As a host, I think it important that I and my guests understand each other if we are to have meaningful conversation.

      You asked for "thoughts, gentlemen." I don't understand what you are after if we are not to understand the meaning of each other's words.

      "Please let me know if further clarification is useful to you."

      No need. We haven't made much progress thus far, and this discussion has gone on long enough.

      Maybe we can try again on a different topic. But don't be put off if I ask for clarification of your meaning - in other words, to define terms.

      Delete
    5. "Yes. I was investigating in good faith."

      I believe so.

      BM wrote:
      "I don't understand what you are after if we are not to understand the meaning of each other's words."

      This is the key area to dig under... to be continued, God Willing.

      BM wrote:
      "We haven't made much progress thus far, and this discussion has gone on long enough."

      Not in terms of agreeing to definitions or injunctions, agreed. However I think I can understand you as you better, am better acquainted. I was always encouraged in football and chess to "play the man, not the ball"... like a gentleman though of course :D. In this process, I have more confidence in my assessment of the strength of your principles and integrity.

      BM wrote:
      "Maybe we can try again on a different topic. But don't be put off if I ask for clarification of your meaning - in other words, to define terms."

      Certainly. From the perspective of Beauty however, it can be off putting when done in ways that is now so common. Again, the permission based dating. The numb leading the numb.

      I'm enjoying the feeling of the word "vulgar" lately... even though I can't apply it here, I'm glad I could put it in this paragraph anyway :D.

      Salams!

      Delete
    6. australia, I am not quite sure what to make of you, but your last paragraph gives me great pause about your goodwill.

      Delete
    7. I see, I'm sorry to hear that.

      God's peace and blessings to you and your family, please keep up your good work.

      Delete
    8. PS. I am promising to myself this will be my last one here, please hold me up to this promise if required.

      BM wrote:
      "your last paragraph gives me great pause about your goodwill."

      I think the good and bad news is that this is archetypal, in both relations between East and West, and between woman and man.

      So this one thing is big and difficult to tackle, but when resolved (God Willing) leads to solving many branch problems. And He Knows Best.

      "Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the most false of tales", is something Muslims are SUPPOSED to heed. So hard in this day.

      Delete
  10. PPS. Last one: let me talk in future about the power of Beautiful manners instead of good ones in future. This is why:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for providing a definition of "beautiful." You see, this isn't so difficult.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, it is not difficult.

      It is also not possible to understand the definition without the embodied Virtue a Roger Scruton represents. For example, he saw a lot of problems with Islam in the West, and voiced them bravely, and subsequently spent time with Muslim scholars in order to deeply understand their perspective. Perhaps this was lead by his keen sense of Beauty - it is hard to ignore the Beauty generated by classical Islam (even as post-colonial Islam has very little of it left). He knew I think that this is a far from arbitrary Sign, that one ignores at one's own peril.

      May he rest in Peace, to God we Belong and to Him is the Return. A voice that will be missed.

      Delete