Some poetry from a friend who has a gift for it that your humble servant (outside of the haiku form) lacks...
Skin me alive.
I’ll be inside.
And you’ll not even have scratched my surface.
Rip out my insides:
I will still abide
somewhere deeper than in the pit of my stomach.
Lop off my head and more.
I’ve lost my head before,
yet always found a way to collect myself.
Grind my bones to make your bread.
I’ll rise like yeast from the dead,
exuding a heavenly aroma you’ll have to breathe.
Fee fie fo fum.
You’ve smelled my blood. You’ll make it run --
but not me, not me.
[Albert Cipriani]
Friday, April 13, 2007
On the Crusades and Learning From History Aka "Santayana's Dictum" Dept.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following is something written last month in response to someone who had a misunderstanding of the Crusades. It may seem odd that such a subject would interest your host but aware as he is of the many people who do not know history -and how badly history is misrepresented by either the contemporary ignorant or those noxious sorts who pose as "historians" but whose actual agenda is to try to make history fit a preconceived model (usually a marxist one) which while not as bad as what the Whig historians{1} do is nonetheless just as fallacious methodologically albeit far more disingenuous (to put it nicely). Nonetheless...
It was once difficult for me to view the Crusaders as anything but self-righteous, but in light of their sincere belief that one must be Christian to avoid eternal damnation, what they did would be justified. It is only because we have a broader interpretation of who is saved and why, that we do not follow this same pattern.
Actually, the Crusaders were responding to a militant expansionist Islamic threat that was sweeping across Africa and into Europe. It had been checked in spots at times but not stopped. The Crusades were intended to stop this threat and roll it back and we know the results of that over about a three hundred fifty odd year period (and several crusades) was mixed. The Muslims were still occupying parts of Europe as late as the fifteenth century (ask Spain and France), were still militarily taking ground in the sixteenth (the Battle of Lepanto temporarily stopped them but not for long) and this went on until 1683. In other words, the Islamic military threat was a serious one for over a thousand years!!!
Now since the Vienna in 1683 they were not a threat to us and the industrial revolution gave us a serious technological edge. But that is not the case anymore and we have been seeing the past fifty years that the Islamic threat has resurfaced amongst the more extreme of the Muslim contingents.
Now it appears to me that in more democratically governed nations the overwhelming majority of the Muslims are not of this sort fortunately but I do find myself annoyed at an obvious double standard invoked by those who defend the silences of the Muslim community towards their more extremist elements as many of these same people blasted Pius XII for similar silences. And those who think there is a giant gulf between the Nazis and the extremist Muslims are not paying much attention. At least with the communists in the days of the old USSR we could to some extent communicate as they were atheists and were not interested in destroying the only life that they believed in. The Islamic extremist sorts not only do not care but they actually believe that "Allah" will reward them in the world to come in proportion to the number of people they can massacre.
We can "talk peace morning, noon, and night" as one reader suggested but it will be futile because this enemy has a long memory. And I am wondering how many of you will still be so stupid as to be chanting "give peace a chance" when your neck has the same rusty knife decapitating it as Nick Berg or Paul Johnson did. Or will you all choose to wear burkas and pray to Mecca five times a day instead???
This war on terror is not a new situation but indeed has been going on since at least the 1970's. And like the days when the Islamic hoard blew out of Saudi Arabia smashing everything in sight, these terrorist sorts have been blowing up civilian targets, civilians, and the like as well as military ones while we for the most part did nothing. President Reagan did a few things and showed backbone but even in his presidency there were a few examples where these sorts but President Carter did nothing whatsoever to let these people know that we would not tolerate this kind of crap. President Clinton did nothing of a substantive nature and even the current president's father apart from the first Gulf War did not do anything that I can recall.
September 11, 2001 brought home to us what has been going on with Americans abroad for decades. Unfortunately, the Vatican has been significantly behind in grasping the significance of what September 11, 2001 was and how it shattered the international presuppositions that had governed at least implicitly European affairs since Westphalia (roughly three hundred odd years). The only significant Catholic commentator I have seen who recognized and has written well on this matter is Sandro Magister who did so in this excellent article on Vatican geopolitics from late 2005. (It is possible that John Allen may have written on this dynamic too but if so, I have not seen it.)
President George W. Bush has done a lot of things wrong but on the matter of recognizing the enemy we are facing, he has done a decent job thus far. Certainly he has done a lot better than those nations that let themselves be bribed by Saddam to oppose actual military action in Iraq when they had voted for such things when it looked as if it would be another non-enforced resolution. (Read: Russia, France, and Germany.) He has also done a lot better in this regard that the Vatican has that is for sure. But it is to be hoped that Russia will not forget what happened to them in 2004 with the whole Breslin situation because that was their 9/11.
The enemy we are facing views peace overtures and empty threats as signs of weakness and that emboldens them. Think of their attacks on civilians as akin to the school bully who picked on the weak kids. Like the school bully, these extremist sorts only understand one thing and that is them being forced to act differently. Let us hope that other nations do not have to have their own version of a 9/11 as we did, Britain did, Spain did, and Russia did in order to realize the folly of this whole "give peace a chance" schtick. We tried that and we ignored this problem for decades. More of the same negligence will not fix it however much one may wish otherwise.
Note:
{1} Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian By Herbert Butterfield (circa October 17, 2005)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following is something written last month in response to someone who had a misunderstanding of the Crusades. It may seem odd that such a subject would interest your host but aware as he is of the many people who do not know history -and how badly history is misrepresented by either the contemporary ignorant or those noxious sorts who pose as "historians" but whose actual agenda is to try to make history fit a preconceived model (usually a marxist one) which while not as bad as what the Whig historians{1} do is nonetheless just as fallacious methodologically albeit far more disingenuous (to put it nicely). Nonetheless...
It was once difficult for me to view the Crusaders as anything but self-righteous, but in light of their sincere belief that one must be Christian to avoid eternal damnation, what they did would be justified. It is only because we have a broader interpretation of who is saved and why, that we do not follow this same pattern.
Actually, the Crusaders were responding to a militant expansionist Islamic threat that was sweeping across Africa and into Europe. It had been checked in spots at times but not stopped. The Crusades were intended to stop this threat and roll it back and we know the results of that over about a three hundred fifty odd year period (and several crusades) was mixed. The Muslims were still occupying parts of Europe as late as the fifteenth century (ask Spain and France), were still militarily taking ground in the sixteenth (the Battle of Lepanto temporarily stopped them but not for long) and this went on until 1683. In other words, the Islamic military threat was a serious one for over a thousand years!!!
Now since the Vienna in 1683 they were not a threat to us and the industrial revolution gave us a serious technological edge. But that is not the case anymore and we have been seeing the past fifty years that the Islamic threat has resurfaced amongst the more extreme of the Muslim contingents.
Now it appears to me that in more democratically governed nations the overwhelming majority of the Muslims are not of this sort fortunately but I do find myself annoyed at an obvious double standard invoked by those who defend the silences of the Muslim community towards their more extremist elements as many of these same people blasted Pius XII for similar silences. And those who think there is a giant gulf between the Nazis and the extremist Muslims are not paying much attention. At least with the communists in the days of the old USSR we could to some extent communicate as they were atheists and were not interested in destroying the only life that they believed in. The Islamic extremist sorts not only do not care but they actually believe that "Allah" will reward them in the world to come in proportion to the number of people they can massacre.
We can "talk peace morning, noon, and night" as one reader suggested but it will be futile because this enemy has a long memory. And I am wondering how many of you will still be so stupid as to be chanting "give peace a chance" when your neck has the same rusty knife decapitating it as Nick Berg or Paul Johnson did. Or will you all choose to wear burkas and pray to Mecca five times a day instead???
This war on terror is not a new situation but indeed has been going on since at least the 1970's. And like the days when the Islamic hoard blew out of Saudi Arabia smashing everything in sight, these terrorist sorts have been blowing up civilian targets, civilians, and the like as well as military ones while we for the most part did nothing. President Reagan did a few things and showed backbone but even in his presidency there were a few examples where these sorts but President Carter did nothing whatsoever to let these people know that we would not tolerate this kind of crap. President Clinton did nothing of a substantive nature and even the current president's father apart from the first Gulf War did not do anything that I can recall.
September 11, 2001 brought home to us what has been going on with Americans abroad for decades. Unfortunately, the Vatican has been significantly behind in grasping the significance of what September 11, 2001 was and how it shattered the international presuppositions that had governed at least implicitly European affairs since Westphalia (roughly three hundred odd years). The only significant Catholic commentator I have seen who recognized and has written well on this matter is Sandro Magister who did so in this excellent article on Vatican geopolitics from late 2005. (It is possible that John Allen may have written on this dynamic too but if so, I have not seen it.)
President George W. Bush has done a lot of things wrong but on the matter of recognizing the enemy we are facing, he has done a decent job thus far. Certainly he has done a lot better than those nations that let themselves be bribed by Saddam to oppose actual military action in Iraq when they had voted for such things when it looked as if it would be another non-enforced resolution. (Read: Russia, France, and Germany.) He has also done a lot better in this regard that the Vatican has that is for sure. But it is to be hoped that Russia will not forget what happened to them in 2004 with the whole Breslin situation because that was their 9/11.
The enemy we are facing views peace overtures and empty threats as signs of weakness and that emboldens them. Think of their attacks on civilians as akin to the school bully who picked on the weak kids. Like the school bully, these extremist sorts only understand one thing and that is them being forced to act differently. Let us hope that other nations do not have to have their own version of a 9/11 as we did, Britain did, Spain did, and Russia did in order to realize the folly of this whole "give peace a chance" schtick. We tried that and we ignored this problem for decades. More of the same negligence will not fix it however much one may wish otherwise.
Note:
{1} Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian By Herbert Butterfield (circa October 17, 2005)
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Excerpts from Classic Writings:
I note only at the outset that the Alexander noted in the text below is Alexander the Great who died three centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies. For not only the barbarous nations that bordered on Macedonia were impatient of being governed by any but their own native princes, but Philip likewise, though he had been victorious over the Grecians, yet, as the time had not been sufficient for him to complete his conquest and accustom them to his sway, had simply left all things in a general disorder and confusion. It seemed to the Macedonians a very critical time; and some would have persuaded Alexander to give up all thought of retaining the Grecians in subjection by force of arms, and rather to apply himself to win back by gentle means the allegiance of the tribes who were designing revolt, and try the effect of indulgence in arresting the first motions towards revolution. But he rejected this counsel as weak and timorous, and looked upon it to be more prudence to secure himself by resolution and magnanimity, than, by seeming to truckle to any, to encourage all to trample on him. In pursuit of this opinion, he reduced the barbarians to tranquillity, and put an end to all fear of war from them, he gave rapid expedition into their country as far as the river Danube, where he gave Syrmus, King of the Triballians, an entire overthrow. And hearing the Thebans were in revolt, and the Athenians in correspondence with them, he immediately marched through the pass of Thermopylae, saying that to Demosthenes, who had called him a child while he was in Illyria and in the country of the Triballians, and a youth when he was in Thessaly, he would appear a man before the walls of Athens.
When he came to Thebes, to show how willing he was to accept of their repentance for what was past, he only demanded of them Phoenix and Prothytes, the authors of the rebellion, and proclaimed a general pardon to those who would come over to him. But when the Thebans merely retorted by demanding Philotas and Antipater to be delivered into their hands, and by a proclamation on their part invited all who would assert the liberty of Greece to come over to them, he presently applied himself to make them feel the last extremities of war. The Thebans indeed defended themselves with a zeal and courage beyond their strength, being much outnumbered by their enemies. But when the Macedonian garrison sallied out upon them from the citadel, they were so hemmed in on all sides that the greater part of them fell in the battle; the city itself being taken by storm, was sacked and razed. Alexander's hope being that so severe an example might terrify the rest of Greece into obedience, and also in order to gratify the hostility of his confederates, the Phocians and Plataeans. So that, except the priests, and some few who had heretofore been the friends and connections of the Macedonians, the family of the poet Pindar, and those who were known to have opposed the public vote for the war, all the rest, to the number of thirty thousand, were publicly sold for slaves; and it is computed that upwards of six thousand were put to the sword.
Among the other calamities that befell the city, it happened that some Thracian soldiers, having broken into the house of a matron of high character and repute, named Timoclea, their captain, after he had used violence with her, to satisfy his avarice as well as lust, asked her, if she knew of any money concealed; to which she readily answered she did, and bade him follow her into a garden, where she showed him a well, into which, she told him, upon the taking of the city, she had thrown what she had of most value. The greedy Thracian presently stooping down to view the place where he thought the treasure lay, she came behind him and pushed him into the well, and then flung great stones in upon him, till she had killed him. After which, when the soldiers led her away bound to Alexander, her very mien and gait showed her to be a woman of dignity, and of a mind no less elevated, not betraying the least sign of fear or astonishment. And when the king asked her who she was, "I am," said she, "the sister of Theagenes, who fought the battle of Chaeronea with your father Philip, and fell there in command for the liberty of Greece." Alexander was so surprised, both at what she had done and what she said, that he could not choose but give her and her children their freedom to go whither they pleased. [Excerpt from Plutarch's Alexander (circa 75 AD)]
I note only at the outset that the Alexander noted in the text below is Alexander the Great who died three centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies. For not only the barbarous nations that bordered on Macedonia were impatient of being governed by any but their own native princes, but Philip likewise, though he had been victorious over the Grecians, yet, as the time had not been sufficient for him to complete his conquest and accustom them to his sway, had simply left all things in a general disorder and confusion. It seemed to the Macedonians a very critical time; and some would have persuaded Alexander to give up all thought of retaining the Grecians in subjection by force of arms, and rather to apply himself to win back by gentle means the allegiance of the tribes who were designing revolt, and try the effect of indulgence in arresting the first motions towards revolution. But he rejected this counsel as weak and timorous, and looked upon it to be more prudence to secure himself by resolution and magnanimity, than, by seeming to truckle to any, to encourage all to trample on him. In pursuit of this opinion, he reduced the barbarians to tranquillity, and put an end to all fear of war from them, he gave rapid expedition into their country as far as the river Danube, where he gave Syrmus, King of the Triballians, an entire overthrow. And hearing the Thebans were in revolt, and the Athenians in correspondence with them, he immediately marched through the pass of Thermopylae, saying that to Demosthenes, who had called him a child while he was in Illyria and in the country of the Triballians, and a youth when he was in Thessaly, he would appear a man before the walls of Athens.
When he came to Thebes, to show how willing he was to accept of their repentance for what was past, he only demanded of them Phoenix and Prothytes, the authors of the rebellion, and proclaimed a general pardon to those who would come over to him. But when the Thebans merely retorted by demanding Philotas and Antipater to be delivered into their hands, and by a proclamation on their part invited all who would assert the liberty of Greece to come over to them, he presently applied himself to make them feel the last extremities of war. The Thebans indeed defended themselves with a zeal and courage beyond their strength, being much outnumbered by their enemies. But when the Macedonian garrison sallied out upon them from the citadel, they were so hemmed in on all sides that the greater part of them fell in the battle; the city itself being taken by storm, was sacked and razed. Alexander's hope being that so severe an example might terrify the rest of Greece into obedience, and also in order to gratify the hostility of his confederates, the Phocians and Plataeans. So that, except the priests, and some few who had heretofore been the friends and connections of the Macedonians, the family of the poet Pindar, and those who were known to have opposed the public vote for the war, all the rest, to the number of thirty thousand, were publicly sold for slaves; and it is computed that upwards of six thousand were put to the sword.
Among the other calamities that befell the city, it happened that some Thracian soldiers, having broken into the house of a matron of high character and repute, named Timoclea, their captain, after he had used violence with her, to satisfy his avarice as well as lust, asked her, if she knew of any money concealed; to which she readily answered she did, and bade him follow her into a garden, where she showed him a well, into which, she told him, upon the taking of the city, she had thrown what she had of most value. The greedy Thracian presently stooping down to view the place where he thought the treasure lay, she came behind him and pushed him into the well, and then flung great stones in upon him, till she had killed him. After which, when the soldiers led her away bound to Alexander, her very mien and gait showed her to be a woman of dignity, and of a mind no less elevated, not betraying the least sign of fear or astonishment. And when the king asked her who she was, "I am," said she, "the sister of Theagenes, who fought the battle of Chaeronea with your father Philip, and fell there in command for the liberty of Greece." Alexander was so surprised, both at what she had done and what she said, that he could not choose but give her and her children their freedom to go whither they pleased. [Excerpt from Plutarch's Alexander (circa 75 AD)]
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Points to Ponder:
History is too complicated to find a perfect fit within any theory. For the true believer, this inconvenience can be overcome. When fact and theory clash, the ideologue chooses theory. To the true believer, ideology is truth. [Dan Flynn (circa June 3, 2003)]
History is too complicated to find a perfect fit within any theory. For the true believer, this inconvenience can be overcome. When fact and theory clash, the ideologue chooses theory. To the true believer, ideology is truth. [Dan Flynn (circa June 3, 2003)]
Monday, April 02, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On the Historical Problems of Random Revolutions)
All these [agitations] in a nation, not yet fitted by education and habit for the enjoyment of freedom, gives me frequent suspicions, that they will greatly overshoot the mark, if indeed they have not already done it....Having never felt the evils of too weak an executive, the disorders to be apprehended from anarchy make as yet no impression. [Gouvernor Morris: Letter to John Jay From The Chateau de Versailles in Paris, France (circa June 26, 1789)]
(On the Historical Problems of Random Revolutions)
All these [agitations] in a nation, not yet fitted by education and habit for the enjoyment of freedom, gives me frequent suspicions, that they will greatly overshoot the mark, if indeed they have not already done it....Having never felt the evils of too weak an executive, the disorders to be apprehended from anarchy make as yet no impression. [Gouvernor Morris: Letter to John Jay From The Chateau de Versailles in Paris, France (circa June 26, 1789)]
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Briefly on Al Qaeda and the Geneva Conventions:
Axiomatically, one runs a risk whenever they make a quick response to a statement or presupposition. However, in the interest of clarifying a common erroneous foundational presupposition on which many who take issue with certain parts of the Bush Administration's handling of the war on terror operate from, such is viewed at the present time to be a risk worth taking. It is not the present writer's intention to argue for or against the general approach taken towards the handling of terrorists taken by the Bush Administration in this posting. However, those who dispute said handlings in the mainstream media and elsewhere who appeal to the Geneva Conventions to do so are in need of a serious education on that point.
There are specific guidelines that are required for following if there is any properly recognized entitlement to prisoner of war status under the aforementioned convention protocols. These matters were covered in an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907 and specify the following regulations to be observed:
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land #Section I : On belligerents #Chapter I : The qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3. To carry arms openly; and 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." [International Committee of the Red Cross: Excerpt from Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague (circa October 18, 1907)]
None of the above conditions are met by (i) Osama Bin Laden, (ii) others in command of Al Qaeda operatives, or (iii) Al Qaeda operatives. For that reason, none of the latter come close to qualifying for protections under the Geneva conventions. Ergo, any appeals to the Geneva Conventions pertaining to the treatment of Al Qaeda terrorists by the Bush Administration or anyone else are non-sequiturial and need not be taken seriously.
Axiomatically, one runs a risk whenever they make a quick response to a statement or presupposition. However, in the interest of clarifying a common erroneous foundational presupposition on which many who take issue with certain parts of the Bush Administration's handling of the war on terror operate from, such is viewed at the present time to be a risk worth taking. It is not the present writer's intention to argue for or against the general approach taken towards the handling of terrorists taken by the Bush Administration in this posting. However, those who dispute said handlings in the mainstream media and elsewhere who appeal to the Geneva Conventions to do so are in need of a serious education on that point.
There are specific guidelines that are required for following if there is any properly recognized entitlement to prisoner of war status under the aforementioned convention protocols. These matters were covered in an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907 and specify the following regulations to be observed:
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land #Section I : On belligerents #Chapter I : The qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3. To carry arms openly; and 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." [International Committee of the Red Cross: Excerpt from Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague (circa October 18, 1907)]
None of the above conditions are met by (i) Osama Bin Laden, (ii) others in command of Al Qaeda operatives, or (iii) Al Qaeda operatives. For that reason, none of the latter come close to qualifying for protections under the Geneva conventions. Ergo, any appeals to the Geneva Conventions pertaining to the treatment of Al Qaeda terrorists by the Bush Administration or anyone else are non-sequiturial and need not be taken seriously.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
On A Possible Future Form of Enslavement:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
What occasioned this posting was review and reflection of the material at the following thread:
One Generation is All They Need (Toronto Star circa December 2006)
I wish I could say I found something logically specious in the above article's rationale but I am afraid I cannot. As a society becomes less and less interested in learning from history and literature, the greater the propensity for accepting in the names of "liberty", "equality", "fraternity", or whatever various forms of totalitarian tyranny which often masquerade under very nice concepts and slogans.
Among the history of which all people should strive to familiarize themselves is the social, legislative, or ecclesiastical anarchy{1} (at best) or terror (at worst) that inexorably flows from all forms of mob rule. As far as the oft-reiterated slogan of "liberty, fraternity, equality", it is intrinsically contradictory. Among the few postings where your host dealt with the myth of liberty and fraternity coexisting are these three found in short order from the archives posted in order from newest to oldest:
On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc.--An Audio Post (circa February 9, 2005)
Condoleeza is a very smart woman -indeed I heard her speak in college when she was a renowned Soviet expert- but on this subject, she is mistaken to no small degree.
[D]o not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 15, 2003)]
The above posting was written in defense of a friend's right to fraternize commercially with whom he pleased. The third posting is the classic exposition of Claude Frederic Bastiat from his magnum opus The Law which we ran on this humble weblog in sixteen installments between September 30, 2002 and March 3, 2003.{2} In brief:
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 31, 2002)]
The premise noted above should be obvious but as it escapes the comprehension of even some pretty bright people (such as Ms. Rice), we will restate it here in brief:
--If you promote liberty than you promote by logical extension freedom of association. The moment you try to make certain persons fraternize with those they do not want to, you have put a limit on their liberty and thereby made void the concept of liberty.
This contradiction is not the only one at the heart of the principle enunciated by the French Revolution but it is a significant one. And those who wonder why there is reference in this thread to the French Revolution can reflect upon how your host senses those who refuse to be chipped in the fashion so noted above may well be subjected to.{3} For the record, your host opposes this practice as any kind of a general norm{4} and so should anyone else who recognizes behind it the thin veneer of enslavement which it inexorably contains.
Notes:
{1} Among the latter we have in mind the medieval movement known as conciliarism which manifested itself to some extent in the later French Gallicanist movement which had to have played some role in the fomenting of the French Revolution, its Reign of Terror, and other bloody manifestations.
{2} The entire thread (with occasional host comments interspersed) can be read here with all the threads interlinked to one another.
{3} If they are not ridiculed, economically marginalized, treated as social lepers, etc. of course.
{4} Not to say that there may not be some limited applications which we could live with of course. (Such as convicted child molesters and serial killers.) But there is a huge difference between using it as a monitoring device on those who by committing of heinous crimes have been lawfully deprived of their freedoms to some extent and the general populace at large. Your host would never support the latter no matter how nicely it is dressed up. And that is the bottom line really.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
What occasioned this posting was review and reflection of the material at the following thread:
One Generation is All They Need (Toronto Star circa December 2006)
I wish I could say I found something logically specious in the above article's rationale but I am afraid I cannot. As a society becomes less and less interested in learning from history and literature, the greater the propensity for accepting in the names of "liberty", "equality", "fraternity", or whatever various forms of totalitarian tyranny which often masquerade under very nice concepts and slogans.
Among the history of which all people should strive to familiarize themselves is the social, legislative, or ecclesiastical anarchy{1} (at best) or terror (at worst) that inexorably flows from all forms of mob rule. As far as the oft-reiterated slogan of "liberty, fraternity, equality", it is intrinsically contradictory. Among the few postings where your host dealt with the myth of liberty and fraternity coexisting are these three found in short order from the archives posted in order from newest to oldest:
On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc.--An Audio Post (circa February 9, 2005)
Condoleeza is a very smart woman -indeed I heard her speak in college when she was a renowned Soviet expert- but on this subject, she is mistaken to no small degree.
[D]o not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 15, 2003)]
The above posting was written in defense of a friend's right to fraternize commercially with whom he pleased. The third posting is the classic exposition of Claude Frederic Bastiat from his magnum opus The Law which we ran on this humble weblog in sixteen installments between September 30, 2002 and March 3, 2003.{2} In brief:
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 31, 2002)]
The premise noted above should be obvious but as it escapes the comprehension of even some pretty bright people (such as Ms. Rice), we will restate it here in brief:
--If you promote liberty than you promote by logical extension freedom of association. The moment you try to make certain persons fraternize with those they do not want to, you have put a limit on their liberty and thereby made void the concept of liberty.
This contradiction is not the only one at the heart of the principle enunciated by the French Revolution but it is a significant one. And those who wonder why there is reference in this thread to the French Revolution can reflect upon how your host senses those who refuse to be chipped in the fashion so noted above may well be subjected to.{3} For the record, your host opposes this practice as any kind of a general norm{4} and so should anyone else who recognizes behind it the thin veneer of enslavement which it inexorably contains.
Notes:
{1} Among the latter we have in mind the medieval movement known as conciliarism which manifested itself to some extent in the later French Gallicanist movement which had to have played some role in the fomenting of the French Revolution, its Reign of Terror, and other bloody manifestations.
{2} The entire thread (with occasional host comments interspersed) can be read here with all the threads interlinked to one another.
{3} If they are not ridiculed, economically marginalized, treated as social lepers, etc. of course.
{4} Not to say that there may not be some limited applications which we could live with of course. (Such as convicted child molesters and serial killers.) But there is a huge difference between using it as a monitoring device on those who by committing of heinous crimes have been lawfully deprived of their freedoms to some extent and the general populace at large. Your host would never support the latter no matter how nicely it is dressed up. And that is the bottom line really.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof:
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Some Springtime Poetry:
For winter's rains and ruins are over,
And all the season of snows and sins;
The days dividing lover and lover,
The light that loses, the night that wins;
And time remembered is grief forgotten,
And frosts are slain and flowers begotten,
And in green underwood and cover
Blossom by blossom the spring begins.
-Algernon Charles Swinburne (circa. 1865)
For winter's rains and ruins are over,
And all the season of snows and sins;
The days dividing lover and lover,
The light that loses, the night that wins;
And time remembered is grief forgotten,
And frosts are slain and flowers begotten,
And in green underwood and cover
Blossom by blossom the spring begins.
-Algernon Charles Swinburne (circa. 1865)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Very briefly on each as time is short...
Investigation Reveals VA Hospital Conditions
Those who wonder why I take the approach I take towards the federal government being in charge of running too many things not within its general competence need only consider examples such as the one above. And anyone who thinks that nationalized health care will be some kind of panacea can consider how well the government already runs everything from VA hospitals to...well...countless other entities. (The public school system comes to mind to note one briefly.)
Furthermore, these kinds of problems are not new at all with the VA but to go into this will involve an examination of the issue of constitutionality and federal intervention. While I may touch again on these issues in the coming days or so, that is all I have time to note at the present time except (of course) that if any group is deserving of our nation's support, it is those who have fought to preserve our freedom in the armed forces either as active soldiers or as other forms of battlefield military support.
FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
Hopefully enough people have perspective of recent historical events to make any comment by your host unnecessary at the present time.
Very briefly on each as time is short...
Investigation Reveals VA Hospital Conditions
Those who wonder why I take the approach I take towards the federal government being in charge of running too many things not within its general competence need only consider examples such as the one above. And anyone who thinks that nationalized health care will be some kind of panacea can consider how well the government already runs everything from VA hospitals to...well...countless other entities. (The public school system comes to mind to note one briefly.)
Furthermore, these kinds of problems are not new at all with the VA but to go into this will involve an examination of the issue of constitutionality and federal intervention. While I may touch again on these issues in the coming days or so, that is all I have time to note at the present time except (of course) that if any group is deserving of our nation's support, it is those who have fought to preserve our freedom in the armed forces either as active soldiers or as other forms of battlefield military support.
FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
Hopefully enough people have perspective of recent historical events to make any comment by your host unnecessary at the present time.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Points to Ponder:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." [Theodore Roosevelt: Citizenship in a Republic Speech at the Sorbonne (circa April 23, 1910)]
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." [Theodore Roosevelt: Citizenship in a Republic Speech at the Sorbonne (circa April 23, 1910)]
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Briefly on each as time is short...
--Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8 (Bret Baker)
To start with, lets call this media hubbub over the 8 US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration what it is: a crock of horse pucky. I remember well the Clinton Administration firing all the US Attorneys two months into the first term of President Bill Clinton and the msm's response was to say nothing. Only the conservatives on talk radio made a big stink about it but that is neither here nor there. Logically, if firing 8 is a "crisis situation" than what does that make firing 93??? And if firing 8 for supposed "political reasons" is so damned evil than what about firing all the US Attorneys as Clinton did??? Where was the msm when that heinous evil was performed by the Clinton's??? As usual, they were AWOL because Clinton was "their guy" and Bush is not.
The truth is, the whole handling of attorneys in the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) is an executive function and the executive can hire or fire whomever they want. That is true with Bush as it was with Clinton. However, I fail to see how this is anything more than a ploy by the Democrats in Congress and their partisans in the msm to sabotage the Bush Administration with another non-scandalous so-called "scandal." If anything was truly a sign of corruption or seeking to impose favouritism onto the USDOJ it would have been the unprecedented firing of all the attorneys as President Clinton did. No president in United States history ever did that before and that was a genuine example of "destabilization" not the Bush Administration's firing of a mere eight attorneys.
What this boils down to folks is yet another obvious and blatant msm double standard against the present Administration in particular and Republicans in general. What more needs to be said than that really???
--Amnesty Follies (Mark Krikorian)
Well, it looks like the whole "anmesty for illegals" absurdity is dead in the water thankfully. It demonstrates once again the value of the approach the Founders of this great nation took towards minority political/social factions and for that I am well-pleased.
--The Burning of Mutinabbi Street (Iraqi Pundit)
Remember these things and other related factors whenever you hear theuseful idiots of Al Queda usual suspects prattle on about what a "paradise" things were under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Remember folks, not a few of these sorts are the exact same sorts of people oftentimes who claimed that Nicaragua and Cuba under communist control was such "wonderlands" and how the Soviet Union was some "workers paradise" despite all objective evidence to the contrary??? The reason for these serious problems of mental cognition on their part has been noted by yours truly before -including briefly in the beginning of this thread{1} so no more needs to be noted on it at the present time than that.
Note:
{1} Look at the quote from a July 20, 2005 posting to this weblog in the aforementioned posting for details.
Briefly on each as time is short...
--Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8 (Bret Baker)
To start with, lets call this media hubbub over the 8 US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration what it is: a crock of horse pucky. I remember well the Clinton Administration firing all the US Attorneys two months into the first term of President Bill Clinton and the msm's response was to say nothing. Only the conservatives on talk radio made a big stink about it but that is neither here nor there. Logically, if firing 8 is a "crisis situation" than what does that make firing 93??? And if firing 8 for supposed "political reasons" is so damned evil than what about firing all the US Attorneys as Clinton did??? Where was the msm when that heinous evil was performed by the Clinton's??? As usual, they were AWOL because Clinton was "their guy" and Bush is not.
The truth is, the whole handling of attorneys in the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) is an executive function and the executive can hire or fire whomever they want. That is true with Bush as it was with Clinton. However, I fail to see how this is anything more than a ploy by the Democrats in Congress and their partisans in the msm to sabotage the Bush Administration with another non-scandalous so-called "scandal." If anything was truly a sign of corruption or seeking to impose favouritism onto the USDOJ it would have been the unprecedented firing of all the attorneys as President Clinton did. No president in United States history ever did that before and that was a genuine example of "destabilization" not the Bush Administration's firing of a mere eight attorneys.
What this boils down to folks is yet another obvious and blatant msm double standard against the present Administration in particular and Republicans in general. What more needs to be said than that really???
--Amnesty Follies (Mark Krikorian)
Well, it looks like the whole "anmesty for illegals" absurdity is dead in the water thankfully. It demonstrates once again the value of the approach the Founders of this great nation took towards minority political/social factions and for that I am well-pleased.
--The Burning of Mutinabbi Street (Iraqi Pundit)
Remember these things and other related factors whenever you hear the
Note:
{1} Look at the quote from a July 20, 2005 posting to this weblog in the aforementioned posting for details.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
On Nancy Pelosi, Pseudo "Peace Activists", and a Reminder of Why Conservatives Should Remain Optimistic About 2008:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We could not let this one pass without comment and a bit of analysis:
Peace activists to rally at Pelosi’s San Francisco home
Here is part of the article:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.
"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."
Blome, holding a plate of cheese and bread and a glass of wine, was stopped on her way to Pelosi’s front door and told the Speaker would not see them. Blom and about ten other activists said they plan to camp outside the residence overnight.
Aaah the beautiful noise of implosion!!! Do not say that your host did not predict this folks -indeed the writing was on the wall from the beginning of the election last year.{1} A key problem that many who support the Democratic majority have --to say nothing of those who took a "doom and gloom" approach to the Republican defeats in the last election-- is that the media as a whole misdiagnosed the election results last year and what they actually mean. To remind the readers of what we wrote on that matter last December in response to a friend who was depressed by the election results:
[W]hat was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics. Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
In short, this kind of implosion{2} was inevitable due to the very make-up of the Pelosi-Reid coalition majority -a one seat Senate majority which we predicted could become a key factor and it has in more than one way thus far.{3}
With over a year and a half until the 2008 elections, a lot more could happen still but one thing is for certain: Pelosi and Reid are caught between a rock and a hard place because if they placate these fringe sorts, they will lose the support of Blue Dog Democrats of a much more conservative persuasion who could align politically on key issues with the Republicans.
Conversely, if the Pelosi-Reid contingent try to placate the Blue Dogs too much, then the fringe sorts who are causing the biggest ruckus will be the ones offended. The latter may not have a position of genuine power but they can teach the Pelosi and Reid contingent the same lesson that many conservatives taught the Republicans in 2006 by refusing to support the Pelosi-Reid coalition in 2008.
In summary, remain optimistic folks because the opposition is not as strong as the MSM portrays them. There are a lot of internal divisions and many within the collective who are not very geopolitically shrewd when it comes to governing in contrast to winning an election majority where they were very shrewd indeed as your host noted in his 2006 election synopsis/analysis thread.{4} But what we are seeing with the attitudes taken by the kook fringe wierdos is music to our ears or to borrow a bit from that great western literary figure Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "I love the smell of Democratic Party implosion in the morning!!!" :)
Notes:
{1} Or as we noted in a post-election synopsis thread:
The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others[...], then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
{2} Far from an isolated incident, the Pelosi protest is one of several that have taken place or are scheduled to take place -as the originally mentioned NC Times article noted.
{3} The main points thus far are the potential incapacitation of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota (who though thankfully recovering well thus far still has a long way to go) and the possiblity of Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman (who is caucusing with the Democrats) to shift his alllegience to the Republicans if the Democrats try to defund the military involvement in Iraq. These are not situations that bode well for the Democrat majority in the Senate and could place the Senate in a position where tiebreaking votes are cast on key issues by the President of the Senate. (For those who do not know, the President of the Senate -who only votes when there is a tiebreaker needed- is Vice President Dick Cheney.)
{4} Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We could not let this one pass without comment and a bit of analysis:
Peace activists to rally at Pelosi’s San Francisco home
Here is part of the article:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.
"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."
Blome, holding a plate of cheese and bread and a glass of wine, was stopped on her way to Pelosi’s front door and told the Speaker would not see them. Blom and about ten other activists said they plan to camp outside the residence overnight.
Aaah the beautiful noise of implosion!!! Do not say that your host did not predict this folks -indeed the writing was on the wall from the beginning of the election last year.{1} A key problem that many who support the Democratic majority have --to say nothing of those who took a "doom and gloom" approach to the Republican defeats in the last election-- is that the media as a whole misdiagnosed the election results last year and what they actually mean. To remind the readers of what we wrote on that matter last December in response to a friend who was depressed by the election results:
[W]hat was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics. Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
In short, this kind of implosion{2} was inevitable due to the very make-up of the Pelosi-Reid coalition majority -a one seat Senate majority which we predicted could become a key factor and it has in more than one way thus far.{3}
With over a year and a half until the 2008 elections, a lot more could happen still but one thing is for certain: Pelosi and Reid are caught between a rock and a hard place because if they placate these fringe sorts, they will lose the support of Blue Dog Democrats of a much more conservative persuasion who could align politically on key issues with the Republicans.
Conversely, if the Pelosi-Reid contingent try to placate the Blue Dogs too much, then the fringe sorts who are causing the biggest ruckus will be the ones offended. The latter may not have a position of genuine power but they can teach the Pelosi and Reid contingent the same lesson that many conservatives taught the Republicans in 2006 by refusing to support the Pelosi-Reid coalition in 2008.
In summary, remain optimistic folks because the opposition is not as strong as the MSM portrays them. There are a lot of internal divisions and many within the collective who are not very geopolitically shrewd when it comes to governing in contrast to winning an election majority where they were very shrewd indeed as your host noted in his 2006 election synopsis/analysis thread.{4} But what we are seeing with the attitudes taken by the kook fringe wierdos is music to our ears or to borrow a bit from that great western literary figure Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "I love the smell of Democratic Party implosion in the morning!!!" :)
Notes:
{1} Or as we noted in a post-election synopsis thread:
The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others[...], then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
{2} Far from an isolated incident, the Pelosi protest is one of several that have taken place or are scheduled to take place -as the originally mentioned NC Times article noted.
{3} The main points thus far are the potential incapacitation of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota (who though thankfully recovering well thus far still has a long way to go) and the possiblity of Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman (who is caucusing with the Democrats) to shift his alllegience to the Republicans if the Democrats try to defund the military involvement in Iraq. These are not situations that bode well for the Democrat majority in the Senate and could place the Senate in a position where tiebreaking votes are cast on key issues by the President of the Senate. (For those who do not know, the President of the Senate -who only votes when there is a tiebreaker needed- is Vice President Dick Cheney.)
{4} Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On the Purpose of Human Law)
The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Ps. 30:33): "He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood"; and (Mt. 9:17) that if "new wine," i.e. precepts of a perfect life, "is put into old bottles," i.e. into imperfect men, "the bottles break, and the wine runneth out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still. [St. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1273)]
(On the Purpose of Human Law)
The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Ps. 30:33): "He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood"; and (Mt. 9:17) that if "new wine," i.e. precepts of a perfect life, "is put into old bottles," i.e. into imperfect men, "the bottles break, and the wine runneth out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still. [St. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1273)]
Sunday, March 11, 2007
On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
In reviewing the notes from the Southern Poverty Law Center on John Sharpe which were mentioned in yesterday's posted thread from The Navy Times, one small point stuck out at me and it was listing Hilaire Belloc amongst the cornucopia of antisemitic literature which John Sharpe's IHS site sells. Hilaire Belloc is an interesting character in many respects with some valuable insights on a variety of issues both of his day and of subsequent times. He also had some rather loopy ideas such as the notion of distributivism as a viable economic model -a hypothesis that your host has explained the intrinsic flaws of on a few occasions.{1} But to assert antisemitism as some have done is frankly absurd.
What it boils down to is the perverse tendency of many modern people to attempt to judge the opinions of people in the past with those common to the present and from that standard dismissing those who do not concur with today's so-called "enlightened" views. It is a variety of the Whig view of history which is methodologically problematical in not a few ways.
This is not to say that Belloc could not be accused of a bias in his work of some sort or another of course. But to admit that much is hardly to say anything profound because everyone has at least some bias. If they do any writing or speaking, these biases will direct at least implicitly what they say. One might even say that some of Belloc's work does not speak well of Jews but that is not adequate to denote antisemitism. As one reader astutely noted in response to the thread from yesterday:
It's too bad the Southern Poverty Law Center and the author of the newspaper article displays an ignorance of Catholic literature. Possession of Belloc and Chesterton hardly counts as incriminating evidence. On the other hand, distributing Hoffmann's Judaism's Strange Gods and Henry Ford's The International Jew is a tad more disconcerting.
Readers who want to see genuine antisemitism can consider the other persons noted in the Southern Poverty Law Center article on John Sharpe. Persons such as Fr. Dennis Fahey, Ernst Zundel, Willis Carto{2} and the names the reader noted above (Michael A. Hoffman II and Henry Ford). Many more could be noted but I think you get the idea.
Antisemitism is a serious issue and therefore, the charge of antisemitism is not one that should be made lightly. John Derbyshire summed up the problem of failing to judge someone in accordance with the standards of their time in his own article on Belloc and the accusation of antisemitism which I will end this posting with:
His opinions were not wildly eccentric in his time and place. His essay on Islam should be taken at its face value, not regarded as tainted because his opinions on other topics would get him chased out of public life today. Belloc does not live today. He lived a hundred years ago.
For goodness' sake. Many of the things we hold to be self-evident truths will look silly or obnoxious a hundred years from now. No doubt some of those being chased out of public life in our time will be regarded by our grandchildren as heros and martyrs. So it has always been in past times, at any rate. Let's use some historical imagination. Our own age is not the summit and end point of all human understanding. In many respects it is a stupid and frivolous age.
Precisely.
Notes:
{1} Offhand, these threads come to mind from the archives of this weblog:
On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc. --A Continuation Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
{2} Runs the American Free Press which is the successor to the old Spotlight periodical.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
In reviewing the notes from the Southern Poverty Law Center on John Sharpe which were mentioned in yesterday's posted thread from The Navy Times, one small point stuck out at me and it was listing Hilaire Belloc amongst the cornucopia of antisemitic literature which John Sharpe's IHS site sells. Hilaire Belloc is an interesting character in many respects with some valuable insights on a variety of issues both of his day and of subsequent times. He also had some rather loopy ideas such as the notion of distributivism as a viable economic model -a hypothesis that your host has explained the intrinsic flaws of on a few occasions.{1} But to assert antisemitism as some have done is frankly absurd.
What it boils down to is the perverse tendency of many modern people to attempt to judge the opinions of people in the past with those common to the present and from that standard dismissing those who do not concur with today's so-called "enlightened" views. It is a variety of the Whig view of history which is methodologically problematical in not a few ways.
This is not to say that Belloc could not be accused of a bias in his work of some sort or another of course. But to admit that much is hardly to say anything profound because everyone has at least some bias. If they do any writing or speaking, these biases will direct at least implicitly what they say. One might even say that some of Belloc's work does not speak well of Jews but that is not adequate to denote antisemitism. As one reader astutely noted in response to the thread from yesterday:
It's too bad the Southern Poverty Law Center and the author of the newspaper article displays an ignorance of Catholic literature. Possession of Belloc and Chesterton hardly counts as incriminating evidence. On the other hand, distributing Hoffmann's Judaism's Strange Gods and Henry Ford's The International Jew is a tad more disconcerting.
Readers who want to see genuine antisemitism can consider the other persons noted in the Southern Poverty Law Center article on John Sharpe. Persons such as Fr. Dennis Fahey, Ernst Zundel, Willis Carto{2} and the names the reader noted above (Michael A. Hoffman II and Henry Ford). Many more could be noted but I think you get the idea.
Antisemitism is a serious issue and therefore, the charge of antisemitism is not one that should be made lightly. John Derbyshire summed up the problem of failing to judge someone in accordance with the standards of their time in his own article on Belloc and the accusation of antisemitism which I will end this posting with:
His opinions were not wildly eccentric in his time and place. His essay on Islam should be taken at its face value, not regarded as tainted because his opinions on other topics would get him chased out of public life today. Belloc does not live today. He lived a hundred years ago.
For goodness' sake. Many of the things we hold to be self-evident truths will look silly or obnoxious a hundred years from now. No doubt some of those being chased out of public life in our time will be regarded by our grandchildren as heros and martyrs. So it has always been in past times, at any rate. Let's use some historical imagination. Our own age is not the summit and end point of all human understanding. In many respects it is a stupid and frivolous age.
Precisely.
Notes:
{1} Offhand, these threads come to mind from the archives of this weblog:
On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc. --A Continuation Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
{2} Runs the American Free Press which is the successor to the old Spotlight periodical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)