It's important to maintain a clear distinction between (a) people who actively advocate and implement evil policies and (b) people who, because they are ignorant or powerless, fail to stop the people in the first group from carrying out their evil plans.
I will concede that ignorance is a fault, and I would exhort everyone to open their eyes and understand what powerful people are doing in the world today. But someone who is hoodwinked into supporting evil is not as guilty as someone who knows what he is doing and doesn't care.
On the other hand, being powerless is not a moral fault. No one can be blamed for failing to prevent something that wasn't in his power to prevent.
I personally feel no responsibility for decisions made by our current government, be it federal, state or local. The simple fact is, they have never listened to me. I am one vote among thousands or millions, and have been on the losing side of almost every recent election. Even when most of the other voters have agreed with me, the powers that be have contrived to ignore us.
They've never asked for my advice, not really, only for my money and my obedience. Well, since they have men with clubs and guns, I'll give them my money like I would to any other mugger. And I'll probably knuckle under when they use that force (or threat of force) to get me to comply with their commands. But what I will not do is agree that they have a right to do these things.
I will not agree when they start immoral wars, or pass laws condoning torture and other violations of human dignity and rights. I will not agree when they meddle in the affairs of other countries. I will deny that they are doing these things as my representative, or in my name.
When they force me to give them money, I'm not responsible for what they do with it, they are. When they draft me into their army and send me to fight in some other country, I'm not responsible for their war, they are. When they steal elections, gerrymander districts, restrict ballot access, use their control of the media to limit coverage to establishment views, etc., I'm not responsible for the officeholders or the policies that result, they are.
30 December 2011
23 December 2011
Peter Harrison's Gifford Lectures (cont.)
I've been indulging myself and have now watched all but the last of Prof. Harrison's lectures.
I recommend them all, but the fifth and penultimate one was perhaps the most interesting. In it, he brings together many of the threads in the story he's been weaving, and begins to draw out some of the implications.
There's a lot in this fifth lecture, and I'm not going to try to summarize it all. But there were two points I found particularly striking.
With the move from inner to outer, from religio and scientia to religion and science, the idea of "progress" no longer means the moral progress of an individual, achieved in one lifetime. Instead, it is the accumulation of propositional knowledge by generations of people, i.e., something achieved over several lifetimes.
Harrison explains how the Reformation and Scientific Revolution were conceived as a purification and restoration of Christianity, by removing what were seen as pagan elements. This reformist attitude led them, for example, to abandon the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation and natural philosophy, which found symbolic meaning in objects of the natural world. Among other things, this led to an exclusively literal interpretation of the Biblical injunction to establish Man's dominion over nature, in place of the allegorical interpretation which saw the wild animals as symbols of Man's own inner appetites which he must tame in order to achieve spiritual growth.
I recommend them all, but the fifth and penultimate one was perhaps the most interesting. In it, he brings together many of the threads in the story he's been weaving, and begins to draw out some of the implications.
There's a lot in this fifth lecture, and I'm not going to try to summarize it all. But there were two points I found particularly striking.
With the move from inner to outer, from religio and scientia to religion and science, the idea of "progress" no longer means the moral progress of an individual, achieved in one lifetime. Instead, it is the accumulation of propositional knowledge by generations of people, i.e., something achieved over several lifetimes.
Harrison explains how the Reformation and Scientific Revolution were conceived as a purification and restoration of Christianity, by removing what were seen as pagan elements. This reformist attitude led them, for example, to abandon the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation and natural philosophy, which found symbolic meaning in objects of the natural world. Among other things, this led to an exclusively literal interpretation of the Biblical injunction to establish Man's dominion over nature, in place of the allegorical interpretation which saw the wild animals as symbols of Man's own inner appetites which he must tame in order to achieve spiritual growth.
22 December 2011
Peter Harrison's Gifford Lectures
Last night I watched a video of the first lecture in Peter Harrison's series on the relationship between religion and science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzN2t5mAzM
In it he notes that, for Aquinas, religio and scientia are interior qualities of the person -- i.e., virtues, which are cultivated through practice/habit. Adverbs, you might say, rather than nouns.
There is no obvious or inherent incompatibility between the virtues of religio and scientia.
The idea of religion and science as sets of propositions came later, and with it the need to adjudicate their conflicting truth-claims.
So conceived, religion and science are no longer inner qualities of the person, they're external, cultural artefacts.
Christian religion, understood as Christlike piety, is succeeded by The Christian religion, understood as the set of doctrines spelled out in a catechism, toward which we give (or withhold) our intellectual assent.
Interesting stuff. I'm not sure how well his thesis about the history of the ideas holds up, but the distinctions he's drawing are certainly worth thinking about. I'm looking forward to watching the other lectures in the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzN2t5mAzM
In it he notes that, for Aquinas, religio and scientia are interior qualities of the person -- i.e., virtues, which are cultivated through practice/habit. Adverbs, you might say, rather than nouns.
There is no obvious or inherent incompatibility between the virtues of religio and scientia.
The idea of religion and science as sets of propositions came later, and with it the need to adjudicate their conflicting truth-claims.
So conceived, religion and science are no longer inner qualities of the person, they're external, cultural artefacts.
Christian religion, understood as Christlike piety, is succeeded by The Christian religion, understood as the set of doctrines spelled out in a catechism, toward which we give (or withhold) our intellectual assent.
Interesting stuff. I'm not sure how well his thesis about the history of the ideas holds up, but the distinctions he's drawing are certainly worth thinking about. I'm looking forward to watching the other lectures in the series.
20 December 2011
A gift reserved for age
And last, the rending pain of re-enactment
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of motives late revealed, and the awareness
Of things ill done and done to others' harm
Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
-- T. S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of motives late revealed, and the awareness
Of things ill done and done to others' harm
Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
-- T. S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
16 December 2011
Timelessness
Timelessness is a quality which interests me deeply.
I once read something by an Orthodox Jew who described all the generations of Israel standing below Mount Sinai, in the eternal moment of the Covenant which defines them as a nation.
When I was a boy learning the Lutheran catechism, I was taught that Christ on the Cross is another such eternal moment.
I experienced the sacrament of marriage as yet another, and have always agreed with Charles Williams that divorce is a metaphysical error, not an ethical or moral one.
The birth of my children, another example.
When I sit and let things be, it isn't to "think about philosophy" or even to "idle away the time." It's to participate once more in the moment of Creation.
The timelessness that I find in moments like these isn't mere persisting or enduring: it isn't that there is something about them that continues. It's the eternal in the sense of being outside time rather than existing at all points along the continuum.
I once read something by an Orthodox Jew who described all the generations of Israel standing below Mount Sinai, in the eternal moment of the Covenant which defines them as a nation.
When I was a boy learning the Lutheran catechism, I was taught that Christ on the Cross is another such eternal moment.
I experienced the sacrament of marriage as yet another, and have always agreed with Charles Williams that divorce is a metaphysical error, not an ethical or moral one.
The birth of my children, another example.
When I sit and let things be, it isn't to "think about philosophy" or even to "idle away the time." It's to participate once more in the moment of Creation.
The timelessness that I find in moments like these isn't mere persisting or enduring: it isn't that there is something about them that continues. It's the eternal in the sense of being outside time rather than existing at all points along the continuum.
12 December 2011
Conservatism
Continuing the seeding of this blog with things I've written elsewhere, here are some comments I made over at the In Mala Fide blog, regarding the nature of conservatism:
I would argue that conservatism, properly understood, isn’t primarily concerned with the past, present or future — or with whether a given policy is old or new. That time-oriented perspective is something that characterizes progressives, not conservatives.
Conservatism is primarily concerned with truth, which it conceives as something constant or timeless, as opposed to something which changes or evolves.
I think it was T. S. Eliot who dubbed the object of conservative attention “the Permanent Things”. It’s a telling phrase.
Because it has this idea of truth, conservatism does not agree with the typical progressive idea that truth is determined by whose side “wins”. Trial by combat doesn’t prove anything except whose side was stronger or — what amounts to the same thing — more adept at whatever form of combat is being used. It doesn’t matter if it’s a fencing match, a debate, a political campaign, or a long-term and wide-ranging attempt to sway public opinion. Truth is what it is, no matter how many people believe it and no matter how successful they are in defending it.
[But insofar as they think about time,] Conservatives are [also] more inclined to believe that the world is devolving, rather than progressing toward some future utopia. In their view, a happy ending is not at all inevitable. (Unless, of course, they are also Christians who believe in the Second Coming at the end of Time. But that final chapter is a divine intervention, not something that results from natural processes or the “laws of history”.)
In other words, I agree with what slumlord said:
And I don’t think conservatism necessarily has to accept the Marxist dictum that the point is to “change the world”. I think this is one of the things the libertarians get right: it’s usually best to just leave people alone and stop being such damned busybodies…
I would argue that conservatism, properly understood, isn’t primarily concerned with the past, present or future — or with whether a given policy is old or new. That time-oriented perspective is something that characterizes progressives, not conservatives.
Conservatism is primarily concerned with truth, which it conceives as something constant or timeless, as opposed to something which changes or evolves.
I think it was T. S. Eliot who dubbed the object of conservative attention “the Permanent Things”. It’s a telling phrase.
Because it has this idea of truth, conservatism does not agree with the typical progressive idea that truth is determined by whose side “wins”. Trial by combat doesn’t prove anything except whose side was stronger or — what amounts to the same thing — more adept at whatever form of combat is being used. It doesn’t matter if it’s a fencing match, a debate, a political campaign, or a long-term and wide-ranging attempt to sway public opinion. Truth is what it is, no matter how many people believe it and no matter how successful they are in defending it.
[But insofar as they think about time,] Conservatives are [
In other words, I agree with what slumlord said:
I think the fundamental error has been defining Conservatism as old and resistant to change, whereas in reality that is not conservatism. Conservatism is ultimately living the right way as opposed to the wrong way. My argument with modern feminism, economics, sexuality etc, is not about them being novel things, it’s about them being wrong.The first task for conservatives isn’t to ask what they’ve being doing wrong [in the political struggle], but to get their heads straight about the right way to live — and then to start living according to those principles.
And I don’t think conservatism necessarily has to accept the Marxist dictum that the point is to “change the world”. I think this is one of the things the libertarians get right: it’s usually best to just leave people alone and stop being such damned busybodies…
Conversation Piece
Today I came across a reference to a song by David Bowie:
I took this walk to ease my mindNow I suppose I'll have to find a copy of this song, to see if the music is as haunting as the lyric.
To find out what's gnawing at me
Wouldn't think to look at me,
that I've spent a lot of time in education
It all seems so long ago
I'm a thinker, not a talker
I've no-one to talk to, anyway
I can't see the road
for the rain in my eyes
Ahhh ...
I live above the grocers store,
owned by an Austrian
He often calls me down to eat
And he jokes about his broken English,
tries to be a friend to me
But for all my years of reading conversation,
I stand without a word to say
I can't see the bridge
for the rain in my eyes
Ahhh...
And the world is full of life
Full of folk who don't know me
And they walk in twos or threes or more
While the light that shines above the grocer's store
Investigates my face so rudely
And my essays lying scattered on the floor
Fulfill their needs just by being there
And my hands shake, my head hurts,
my voice sticks inside my throat
I'm invisible and dumb,
And no-one will recall me
And I can't see the water
for the tears in my ey-y-yes
11 December 2011
It's important, I think, to spell out some of the implications of my previous post.
If, as I suggest, the Ring was destroyed as a consequence of the curse it itself had placed on Gollum, it means that the usual interpretations of Tolkien's story are not quite correct.
It is true that it's a story of heroic sacrifice, but the point is that all those sacrifices, while they might have been necessary, weren't sufficient to ensure the victory.
The mighty deeds of Aragorn, the Elves, the men of Gondor, and the Rohirrim did not lead to final victory. Aragorn himself acknowledges this, as he prepares to lead his army to the forlorn Last Battle before the Black Gates.
Most significantly, Frodo fails in his quest. He succumbs to the Ring, claims it as his own, and refuses to do what he came to do. But it's more accurate to say that the Ring finally masters him, that he no longer has the will or the ability to resist, and that it is now the Ring acting and speaking through him. He doesn't possess the Ring, it finally and completely possesses him.
The situation is exactly the same as what the Nordic poets describe in the stories of Beowulf, of Ragnarok, and the Battle of Maldon. There is no reason to expect victory; every practical calculation says that the Enemy is going to win.
And in the moment when Frodo claims the Ring, the Enemy has won. Or so it seems.
Heroism and sacrifice are certainly not to be despised, but ultimately they weren't the means through which Providence worked the unexpected victory over Sauron.
Instead, what mattered was the fact that spells and curses aren't just empty threats. They're real, and they have a real effect. A curse is as much a weapon as a torpedo, and just as deadly. Perhaps moreso.
Sauron's power was based on the effectiveness of sorcery, on the manipulation of causality to serve the will. If curses didn't work, neither would any of Sauron's other spells. But they do work, and he did build an empire using his sorcery. When the Ring curses Gollum, it establishes a geas, specifying the consequences which must follow if and when the stated prohibition is violated. Touch me not, the Ring says, or else.
So Sauron's defeat wasn't a matter of being struck down by some hero, big or small. It wasn't some kind of suicidal kamikaze attack that brought him down. The many heroic self-sacrifices ultimately did nothing to change the strategic conditions. Nor was it a cheap trick, like a deus ex machina suddenly appearing on the scene to save the day. The rules of the game weren't suddenly changed, and nobody cheated. The same rules that made his sorcery possible in the first place were the rules that finally undid him.
It wasn't just a lucky accident either: Gollum didn't merely slip, he was pushed.
The final irony is, the same Ring that cursed him had filled him with an insane lust to possess it, so then when he did touch it again, in violation of the geas, it was just as inevitable that he would carry it with him down into the fire.
Oft evil will shall evil mar.
If, as I suggest, the Ring was destroyed as a consequence of the curse it itself had placed on Gollum, it means that the usual interpretations of Tolkien's story are not quite correct.
It is true that it's a story of heroic sacrifice, but the point is that all those sacrifices, while they might have been necessary, weren't sufficient to ensure the victory.
The mighty deeds of Aragorn, the Elves, the men of Gondor, and the Rohirrim did not lead to final victory. Aragorn himself acknowledges this, as he prepares to lead his army to the forlorn Last Battle before the Black Gates.
Most significantly, Frodo fails in his quest. He succumbs to the Ring, claims it as his own, and refuses to do what he came to do. But it's more accurate to say that the Ring finally masters him, that he no longer has the will or the ability to resist, and that it is now the Ring acting and speaking through him. He doesn't possess the Ring, it finally and completely possesses him.
The situation is exactly the same as what the Nordic poets describe in the stories of Beowulf, of Ragnarok, and the Battle of Maldon. There is no reason to expect victory; every practical calculation says that the Enemy is going to win.
And in the moment when Frodo claims the Ring, the Enemy has won. Or so it seems.
Heroism and sacrifice are certainly not to be despised, but ultimately they weren't the means through which Providence worked the unexpected victory over Sauron.
Instead, what mattered was the fact that spells and curses aren't just empty threats. They're real, and they have a real effect. A curse is as much a weapon as a torpedo, and just as deadly. Perhaps moreso.
Sauron's power was based on the effectiveness of sorcery, on the manipulation of causality to serve the will. If curses didn't work, neither would any of Sauron's other spells. But they do work, and he did build an empire using his sorcery. When the Ring curses Gollum, it establishes a geas, specifying the consequences which must follow if and when the stated prohibition is violated. Touch me not, the Ring says, or else.
So Sauron's defeat wasn't a matter of being struck down by some hero, big or small. It wasn't some kind of suicidal kamikaze attack that brought him down. The many heroic self-sacrifices ultimately did nothing to change the strategic conditions. Nor was it a cheap trick, like a deus ex machina suddenly appearing on the scene to save the day. The rules of the game weren't suddenly changed, and nobody cheated. The same rules that made his sorcery possible in the first place were the rules that finally undid him.
It wasn't just a lucky accident either: Gollum didn't merely slip, he was pushed.
The final irony is, the same Ring that cursed him had filled him with an insane lust to possess it, so then when he did touch it again, in violation of the geas, it was just as inevitable that he would carry it with him down into the fire.
Oft evil will shall evil mar.
10 December 2011
It's well-known that one of Tolkien's major themes is that evil is often its own undoing. But one of the ways this is demonstrated in The Lord of the Rings seems to have gone unnoticed by many readers.*
In the chapter titled "Mount Doom", Gollum's first attack on Frodo comes while they are still on the slopes of the mountain, still on their way to the Cracks of Doom. Frodo throws him off, and then we read:
'If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.' And that's exactly what happens! Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, seizes the Ring, and falls with it into the lake of fire. The curse is fulfilled.
Shifting to a very different kind of story, I'm reminded of the scene in the movie The Hunt for Red October where a Russian submariner, seeing that their own torpedo is about to hit them, tells his captain, "You arrogant ass. You've killed us."
* But not all. Corey Olsen, the "Tolkien Professor", makes exactly these same points in his podcast lectures on the Lord of the Rings.
In the chapter titled "Mount Doom", Gollum's first attack on Frodo comes while they are still on the slopes of the mountain, still on their way to the Cracks of Doom. Frodo throws him off, and then we read:
'Down, down!' he gasped, clutching his hand to his breast, so that beneath the cover of his leather shirt he clasped the Ring. 'Down, you creeping thing, and out of my path! Your time is at an end. You cannot betray me or slay me now.'
Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire spoke a commanding voice.
'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'
(emphasis added)Is this Frodo speaking, or the Ring? As I understand it, it's the latter. Earlier in the story we saw how Frodo had pity for Gollum, but here the speaker is "untouchable by pity". It speaks "out of the fire" and with a commanding voice. In cold malice, contempt and cruelty, the Ring pronounces a curse upon the wretched creature that it had once used but has now discarded as being of no further use.
'If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.' And that's exactly what happens! Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, seizes the Ring, and falls with it into the lake of fire. The curse is fulfilled.
Shifting to a very different kind of story, I'm reminded of the scene in the movie The Hunt for Red October where a Russian submariner, seeing that their own torpedo is about to hit them, tells his captain, "You arrogant ass. You've killed us."
* But not all. Corey Olsen, the "Tolkien Professor", makes exactly these same points in his podcast lectures on the Lord of the Rings.
Proph has an interesting taxonomy of anti-modern narratives over at his blog. An excerpt:
The Biblical view is, of course, that Man has been corrupted ever since the Garden. The Old Testament is full of descriptions of his depravities, and many of those depravities rival and sometimes even outdo our own.
What proph calls the beginning, when man lived as God willed him to, is only a brief interlude compared to the number of pages devoted to the rest of the story.
The strict view does seem to imply an awareness that we're involved in a long, losing battle and that the climactic moment is close at hand. The enemy has us hemmed in on all sides, and seems about to land his final, crushing blow.
Last night I re-read Tolkien's essay on Beowulf (The Monsters and The Critics) and was struck by his description of the Nordic concept of courage: fighting on, even when we have no hope of victory. We all die in the end, even the gods of Asgard. No feat of arms or clever dialectic can defeat that Hideous Strength.
But nevertheless we do not despair.
Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre,
mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað.
Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder,
spirit the greater as our strength lessens.
The Strict Right-Wing Narrative (Modernity as Satanism Triumphant). In the beginning, man lived as God willed him to, a life of austerity, penance, and obedience. But as a result of the lies and machinations of the Devil, society slowly became corrupted with unreason, insanity, and sin, and has degenerated into its present state of self-worship, sexual degeneracy, and the collapse of all those institutions ordained by God for the good of man.One quibble: this account of the strict right-wing narrative makes it sound as if the effects of the Fall have been gradual. As if ancient man was, on the whole, less depraved than the moderns.
The Biblical view is, of course, that Man has been corrupted ever since the Garden. The Old Testament is full of descriptions of his depravities, and many of those depravities rival and sometimes even outdo our own.
What proph calls the beginning, when man lived as God willed him to, is only a brief interlude compared to the number of pages devoted to the rest of the story.
The strict view does seem to imply an awareness that we're involved in a long, losing battle and that the climactic moment is close at hand. The enemy has us hemmed in on all sides, and seems about to land his final, crushing blow.
Last night I re-read Tolkien's essay on Beowulf (The Monsters and The Critics) and was struck by his description of the Nordic concept of courage: fighting on, even when we have no hope of victory. We all die in the end, even the gods of Asgard. No feat of arms or clever dialectic can defeat that Hideous Strength.
But nevertheless we do not despair.
Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre,
mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað.
Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder,
spirit the greater as our strength lessens.
08 December 2011
Tragedy
Commenting on a story about Oscar Wilde and how he suffered from the loss of his children, who were taken away because of his crimes:
I think Wilde was less a victim of Victorian puritanism than of his own vices. He self-destructed and the social attitudes of the times only provided the context for that self-destruction.
I don’t doubt that he felt the loss of his children keenly, and that this was a more painful price than he ever thought he would have to pay. But that’s what it’s like for a lot of men in their twilight years: we look back on our past and see how some of the choices we made turned out to have graver consequences than we ever imagined.
Yet we also see how we were, in a strange way, impelled to make those choices. At the time we were simply doing what came to us naturally — being ourselves, as the saying goes. But it’s as if we were actors in a story written by someone else, and we had no choice except to play the part as it was written for us. We’re character studies in a Greek tragedy, brought inexorably to the final, sobering scenes by the quirks and flaws in our own nature. Even our best qualities seem to have worked to our undoing. The only hope we’re left with is that our story might be edifying, or a fitting spectacle for the gods.
I don’t think we need to condone Wilde’s homosexuality or his pederasty in order to recognize him as someone who came to share this tragic sense of life.
I think Wilde was less a victim of Victorian puritanism than of his own vices. He self-destructed and the social attitudes of the times only provided the context for that self-destruction.
I don’t doubt that he felt the loss of his children keenly, and that this was a more painful price than he ever thought he would have to pay. But that’s what it’s like for a lot of men in their twilight years: we look back on our past and see how some of the choices we made turned out to have graver consequences than we ever imagined.
Yet we also see how we were, in a strange way, impelled to make those choices. At the time we were simply doing what came to us naturally — being ourselves, as the saying goes. But it’s as if we were actors in a story written by someone else, and we had no choice except to play the part as it was written for us. We’re character studies in a Greek tragedy, brought inexorably to the final, sobering scenes by the quirks and flaws in our own nature. Even our best qualities seem to have worked to our undoing. The only hope we’re left with is that our story might be edifying, or a fitting spectacle for the gods.
I don’t think we need to condone Wilde’s homosexuality or his pederasty in order to recognize him as someone who came to share this tragic sense of life.
Loneliness
Most lonely when I'm remembering the afternoon sun on the side of her face, so long long ago, and wishing she were here with me now.
But also remembering how I pushed her and so many others away, and pursued my solitary pastimes...
My loneliness, mixed as it is with sorrow and regret, is a just sentence.
Purify me with hyssop until I am clean;
wash me until I am whiter than snow.
Instill some joy and gladness into me,
let the bones you have crushed rejoice again.
Hide your face from my sins,
wipe out all my guilt.
God, create a clean heart in me,
put into me a new and constant spirit,
do not banish me from your presence,
do not deprive me of your holy spirit.
But also remembering how I pushed her and so many others away, and pursued my solitary pastimes...
My loneliness, mixed as it is with sorrow and regret, is a just sentence.
Purify me with hyssop until I am clean;
wash me until I am whiter than snow.
Instill some joy and gladness into me,
let the bones you have crushed rejoice again.
Hide your face from my sins,
wipe out all my guilt.
God, create a clean heart in me,
put into me a new and constant spirit,
do not banish me from your presence,
do not deprive me of your holy spirit.
I've heard it said that "There are as many ideas -- thoughts about truth or reality -- as there are thinkers."
Really? It often seems to me that we have a rather limited, finite pool of ideas that we keep circulating amongst ourselves. It also seems to me that the number of ideas in that pool is much smaller than the number of thinkers thinking about them.
Or perhaps there are fewer genuine "thinkers" worthy of the name than is usually supposed?
In my experience, very few people have what I would call a unique perspective on the world. Most of them have simply cobbled something together using ideas they got from their parents, from their friends, or from the television. Their goal doesn't seem to be getting at the truth or reality so much as it is with fitting in with the crowd and with emulating the kind of behavior which earns the respect of the crowd. The only thing which distinguishes them is which crowd they have chosen to run with.
Mind you, I'm not claiming any uniqueness for myself! I know which crowd(s) I run with, or would like to run with.
Really? It often seems to me that we have a rather limited, finite pool of ideas that we keep circulating amongst ourselves. It also seems to me that the number of ideas in that pool is much smaller than the number of thinkers thinking about them.
Or perhaps there are fewer genuine "thinkers" worthy of the name than is usually supposed?
In my experience, very few people have what I would call a unique perspective on the world. Most of them have simply cobbled something together using ideas they got from their parents, from their friends, or from the television. Their goal doesn't seem to be getting at the truth or reality so much as it is with fitting in with the crowd and with emulating the kind of behavior which earns the respect of the crowd. The only thing which distinguishes them is which crowd they have chosen to run with.
Mind you, I'm not claiming any uniqueness for myself! I know which crowd(s) I run with, or would like to run with.
Disclaimer
I have always found it a very humbling experience to read or listen to someone else's interpretation of a work in philosophy, and compare it to what I had gotten out of it on my own. Same thing with poetry, fiction, art and music.
I appreciate the fact that others have a capacity for insight that I don't seem to share. I don't make any claims for brilliance myself; my main virtue is a stubborn determination to keep going.
I appreciate the fact that others have a capacity for insight that I don't seem to share. I don't make any claims for brilliance myself; my main virtue is a stubborn determination to keep going.
Another loner who doesn't want to be alone
Here I am, a lazy old man. Normally I find it so bothersome to have people coming to see me that I often vow in my heart, "I'll never meet or invite people." But what can I do? -- on a moonlit night or in the snowy morning I long for my friends. At such a time, quietly I drink sake alone, talking in my mind. I push open the door of my hut and look at the snow. I take up my cup again, dip my brush and put it away. Here I am, a demented old man:
I drink sake and find it harder to sleep this snowy night.
-- Basho
I drink sake and find it harder to sleep this snowy night.
-- Basho
For Beauty is nothing
but the beginning of a terror that we can just barely endure,
and the reason we admire it so is that it serenely disdains
to destroy us.
-- Rilke
Indeed, who can look on the face of God and live?
The mere beginning, the first hints of awe-inspiring Beauty are more than enough. Sometimes already too much.
but the beginning of a terror that we can just barely endure,
and the reason we admire it so is that it serenely disdains
to destroy us.
-- Rilke
Indeed, who can look on the face of God and live?
The mere beginning, the first hints of awe-inspiring Beauty are more than enough. Sometimes already too much.
That's interesting
He said he likes explanations that are interesting, and what he meant is that they lead to further interesting questions and explanations.
I'm reminded of the depth and subtlety of Tolkien's sub-creation, and how even after all these years, I'm still finding new things in it. It has sustained and nourished my interest.
One of my philosophy professors used to say that the mark of the real was that it is infinitely specifiable. Reality is always larger than any description we have of it. It's even larger than the concatenation of every description that has ever been made or ever will be made of it.
But although we can never know the whole truth, it seems that we can know some of it -- and that it's interesting to try.
I'm reminded of the depth and subtlety of Tolkien's sub-creation, and how even after all these years, I'm still finding new things in it. It has sustained and nourished my interest.
One of my philosophy professors used to say that the mark of the real was that it is infinitely specifiable. Reality is always larger than any description we have of it. It's even larger than the concatenation of every description that has ever been made or ever will be made of it.
But although we can never know the whole truth, it seems that we can know some of it -- and that it's interesting to try.
Objective truth
Consider: something can be true even if no one knows it. Even if no one has ever known it and no one ever will.
And on the other hand: Something can be a forgery even if no genuine original exists. If someone comes forward with what he claims is a painting by Mozart, that doesn't mean Mozart ever painted anything like it -- or indeed, that he ever painted anything at all.
And on the other hand: Something can be a forgery even if no genuine original exists. If someone comes forward with what he claims is a painting by Mozart, that doesn't mean Mozart ever painted anything like it -- or indeed, that he ever painted anything at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)