Not Impossible: 5 Ways Japan Could Have Won World War II (And Changed History)
Pages
▼
Friday, April 12, 2019
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is a continuation of sorts to a brief musing I posted at the start of Lent this year.
To pick up and expand on that thread, I have made it a point in recent years to seek to repair bridges where I had at least a hand in their falling into disrepair if not been destroyed altogether. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to revisit a template of sorts I set down in years past for dealing with these matters. To wit:
The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.
As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.[...]
When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:
On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft-misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.
While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]
From nearly the beginning of this website once we found our footing here{1}, it has been my intention to facilitate dialogue across a sphere of subjects. While our understanding of these matters was less formed than it would later become, the study of and writing on these matters from an ecclesial perspective was only the start of the principles involved being applied across the entire spectrum of personal interactions. As warranted, guidelines for authentic dialogue would be further delineated in the cauldron of contemporary controversies until finally a more permanent template was set down in 2008 which explicitly embodied the principles we had written on in the five year period preceding it. I revisited that material in 2018 for what was intended to be a column in the abortive WherePeterIs project{2} and when the latter fell through, it was published to this website instead.
It is my hope that these principles of authentic dialogue can not only serve to help in building bridges and burying hatchets not only where the present writer is concerned but also that in some small way they will benefit others as well in their dialogual journeys.
Notes:
{1} Or as noted before in years past:
[Y]our host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.
We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]
{2} For the background on that situation, see these links if interested:
Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (originally published on June 16, 2018)
On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is a continuation of sorts to a brief musing I posted at the start of Lent this year.
To pick up and expand on that thread, I have made it a point in recent years to seek to repair bridges where I had at least a hand in their falling into disrepair if not been destroyed altogether. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to revisit a template of sorts I set down in years past for dealing with these matters. To wit:
The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.
As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.[...]
When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:
On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft-misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.
While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]
From nearly the beginning of this website once we found our footing here{1}, it has been my intention to facilitate dialogue across a sphere of subjects. While our understanding of these matters was less formed than it would later become, the study of and writing on these matters from an ecclesial perspective was only the start of the principles involved being applied across the entire spectrum of personal interactions. As warranted, guidelines for authentic dialogue would be further delineated in the cauldron of contemporary controversies until finally a more permanent template was set down in 2008 which explicitly embodied the principles we had written on in the five year period preceding it. I revisited that material in 2018 for what was intended to be a column in the abortive WherePeterIs project{2} and when the latter fell through, it was published to this website instead.
It is my hope that these principles of authentic dialogue can not only serve to help in building bridges and burying hatchets not only where the present writer is concerned but also that in some small way they will benefit others as well in their dialogual journeys.
Notes:
{1} Or as noted before in years past:
[Y]our host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.
We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]
{2} For the background on that situation, see these links if interested:
Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (originally published on June 16, 2018)
On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Jesus Was A Socialist (Hippie Heretic)
I was asked in private correspondence to respond to the link above so below is substantially what my initial musings on it were...
The writer of the piece attempts an anachronistic projection of later hypotheses and concepts into earlier biblical times and is a classic apples and oranges ploy. As a result, their essay comes off basically as an attempt to cut and paste verses to support a preconceived point of view. In the case of socialism, the guy is a socialist by his own admission but then refuses to define what that term means and he looks for similarities to some interpretations of socialism in the Gospels and treats those as if they are socialist. But as he has not bothered to define his terms in advance, he can basically make them say whatever he wants them to say. (Apologists of all sorts play these same kinds of games.)
Are there similarities in some socialist points and some Gospel passages? Sure there are. There are also similarities in some capitalist or market based points and some Gospel passages. (For example, the parable of the talents.) Similarity is not the same as identity however. I made the point in a recent Lenten reflection that the Gospel is not right wing or left wing but these terms are inadequate to explain the phenomenon involved. And a key point the socialist does not seem to point out is that socialism involves not voluntary sharing of ones goods and possessions with the less fortunate (that is charity after all) but involves some governing entity arbitrarily seizing ones goods and possessions and giving them to someone else without any concern as to whether the owner of said goods and possessions actually wants to do this or not. The key to the various Gospel passages he cites (as well as the Acts passage) from what I can tell is the importance of detachment from goods and possessions.
A phrase that can be said to apply here is this: "we can possess wealth, we should not however let wealth possess us" and that is they key. But wealth is more than money and property. In a certain sense, it can be said to be anything which stands between us and God. To the extent that anything stands between, it is a problem even if the good or principle is itself neutral or even good (i.e. spouses, children, particular liturgical preferences, particular religious devotions, favourite sports teams, particular political or social viewpoints, etc). That is the key that the writer of the piece above in attempting to promote a "Jesus was a socialist" hypothesis fails to grasp.
I was asked in private correspondence to respond to the link above so below is substantially what my initial musings on it were...
The writer of the piece attempts an anachronistic projection of later hypotheses and concepts into earlier biblical times and is a classic apples and oranges ploy. As a result, their essay comes off basically as an attempt to cut and paste verses to support a preconceived point of view. In the case of socialism, the guy is a socialist by his own admission but then refuses to define what that term means and he looks for similarities to some interpretations of socialism in the Gospels and treats those as if they are socialist. But as he has not bothered to define his terms in advance, he can basically make them say whatever he wants them to say. (Apologists of all sorts play these same kinds of games.)
Are there similarities in some socialist points and some Gospel passages? Sure there are. There are also similarities in some capitalist or market based points and some Gospel passages. (For example, the parable of the talents.) Similarity is not the same as identity however. I made the point in a recent Lenten reflection that the Gospel is not right wing or left wing but these terms are inadequate to explain the phenomenon involved. And a key point the socialist does not seem to point out is that socialism involves not voluntary sharing of ones goods and possessions with the less fortunate (that is charity after all) but involves some governing entity arbitrarily seizing ones goods and possessions and giving them to someone else without any concern as to whether the owner of said goods and possessions actually wants to do this or not. The key to the various Gospel passages he cites (as well as the Acts passage) from what I can tell is the importance of detachment from goods and possessions.
A phrase that can be said to apply here is this: "we can possess wealth, we should not however let wealth possess us" and that is they key. But wealth is more than money and property. In a certain sense, it can be said to be anything which stands between us and God. To the extent that anything stands between, it is a problem even if the good or principle is itself neutral or even good (i.e. spouses, children, particular liturgical preferences, particular religious devotions, favourite sports teams, particular political or social viewpoints, etc). That is the key that the writer of the piece above in attempting to promote a "Jesus was a socialist" hypothesis fails to grasp.