Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Immigration and academia on The Tom Woods Show

This week I appear on The Tom Woods Show to discuss the immigration debate, the state of academic philosophy, and other matters.

Posted by at

86 comments:

  1. Vini TadeoFebruary 13, 2025 at 11:07 AM

    Great interview, Ed!

    ReplyDelete
  2. TonyFebruary 13, 2025 at 5:26 PM

    I have to agree, it is a good interview. Tom Woods did a good job of setting you up with some interesting questions, and then giving you time to answer them in some detail.

    I want to note a couple of points that lie behind what JD Vance advanced as standard Christian thinking. First, (St. Thomas points this out), there is a difference between benevolence toward others, and corporal acts of charity toward others. We have a duty to love that is "toward all" in the generic sense that all are deserving of love, both as human beings and as (either potentially or actually) adopted children of God. In this "good will toward all", we hold all in our love by category, because we are unable to know all individually.

    On the other hand, it is literally impossible to do corporal acts of charity toward ALL persons, because there is not enough time in the day nor enough material goods with which to do it. Therefore, it is not our duty to do such acts toward all.

    Secondly, if we note carefully what Christ told us about our duty of beneficence, he gave us hints as to the principles to use to decide how and when to act with beneficence: Love your neighbor as yourself.

    The obvious point here, so obvious that we almost always overlook it, is that "neighbor" has a meaning: someone who lives near you. The guy 4 houses down is your neighbor. The guy 4,000 miles away, not so much! Now, "nearness" can (and is, rightly) employed in more senses than mere physical closeness, measured by a yardstick. It can be other kinds of closeness: being part of the same family, even if one moves away; or same business, even if in different plants; being part of the same parish, or same city, or university, or same nation-state, or same national organization. But with these also, there tends to be a matter of degree in measuring the nearness, which means some are closer and some are farther. This constitutes the foundation for a difference in how we ought to act toward such persons.

    How so? Because it is by nearness that we will more properly understand the true nature of their need, rather than merely the outward aspects of it. Does a guy need food? Ok, but why? Is the guy out of a job, or is he so insane he doesn't even recognize food, or is he on a special diet and can't eat the sandwich you just handed him? And it is by nearness that we can make judgements as to not only what kind of response is best fit to the problem, but also who is best fit to make that response. The neighbor's kid needs a good swat on the behind? Ok, but it is the dad and not you who ought to deliver it.

    b>Particularities make up the conditions of such true acts of charity, and they are determined by people who have or can learn those details, and that implies nearness of one form or another. "[B]ecause all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances."

    This doesn't mean "it's the other guy's job to fix this" applies always and everywhere, if someone isn't very close. But it means there are nuances and judgment calls and LIMITS to be considered. In the Acts of the Apostles, the church in Antioch took up a collection to send aid to the church in Jerusalem during a famine...but they didn't send aid to everyone affected by the famine, it went to the church leaders in Jerusalem to be doled out to the church there. And they didn't send aid to India and China, though there was probably a shortage there too (there always was a shortage somewhere in ancient times).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CosmicCatFebruary 14, 2025 at 12:33 PM

      @Tony

      Don't quote the Word of God; you're going to get crackhead assembly hackers incoming shortly.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasFebruary 15, 2025 at 5:48 AM

      Tony,

      Super helpful comment.

      I am reminded by all of this and by Pope Francis' correction of the non fault of Vance of the need to pray for a subsequent Holy Father that has searched the Catholic intellectual tradition to its fundamental principles and in this way does not use the office of the Papacy to spread confusion.

      I have praised Cardinal Dolan in another post, but he models the sort of fatherly correction of others when needed that is also hopeful and points out the good of people of goodwill even when their faults merit correction. As an example, Cardinal Dolan both highly praised Vance for his wonderful qualities, but also provided a gentle correction to the suggestion that funds might be the major concern of the USCCB in loss of support from US AID (Cardinal Dolan noted that they are taking losses and said "look at our books"). Cardinal Dolan's approach was a model of charity and pastoral guidance and Pope Francis' response to Vance correctly highlighting the Ordo Amoris provided neither the clarify of the Catholic intellectual tradition nor the same pastoral concern he seems to have for whatever Catholic is supporting real evils like abortion and gender ideology. It is regretful when the laity are spreading Catholic thought and are being corrected by the very person who is supposed to be spreading that thought, but is instead opposing and undermining it.

      I am hesitant to mention these faults of the Holy Father, but it seems to me that they are probably known to all here and that they require public correction.

      Delete
    3. Michael CopasFebruary 15, 2025 at 5:51 AM

      "How so? Because it is by nearness that we will more properly understand the true nature of their need, rather than merely the outward aspects of it. Does a guy need food? Ok, but why? Is the guy out of a job, or is he so insane he doesn't even recognize food, or is he on a special diet and can't eat the sandwich you just handed him? And it is by nearness that we can make judgements as to not only what kind of response is best fit to the problem, but also who is best fit to make that response. The neighbor's kid needs a good swat on the behind? Ok, but it is the dad and not you who ought to deliver it."

      So well said.

      Delete
    4. TonyFebruary 15, 2025 at 4:13 PM

      Cardinal Dolan noted that they are taking losses and said "look at our books"

      I don't know anything at all about Dolan's use of the federal money, so, maybe in his diocese it is all above-board and clean. Great for him if it is.

      Too many bishops, though, have advocated both breaking current law, and abolishing immigration law. And too many bishops have bloated, top-heavy organizations issuing aid, where there are layers of people people doing little of use, but being paid. (Sometimes such organizations can pass an audit accounting for every dollar, but it's the very organization itself that is wasteful - an audit cannot determine whether positions and salaries are truly needed.) Too many bishops have turned a blind eye to the human catastrophe resulting from border laxity. And too many bishops demonstrate a marked lack of either theoretical grasp or prudential judgment of the proper hierarchy of good.

      Just as we are finding out that many persons in authority have been themselves responsible for horrible waste and abuse of funds in our government, and of covering it up when they were direct participants, I strongly believe that we are going to find the same thing going on the Church in America: too many people in diocese chanceries (and not excluding bishops) who knew all about McCarrick, and all of his cronies and proteges, and about their predations on young boys and on seminarians, and remained silent (just to pick one concrete example). Too many bishops who turned a blind eye to heretics and near-heretics teaching in seminaries. (It is not a valid defense that "well, he has not been found guilty of heresy...". There is no good reason to hire people whose views violate traditional teaching in the half-dozen reprobated levels short of "heresy".) The things that the bishops spend their energy and focus on demonstrate that they don't have a clue why real, bona-fide active membership in the Church is imploding, nor why their seminaries are empty: They actively persecute the parts of the Church that do produce vocations (traditional forms of whatever sort).

      Delete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2025 at 12:47 PM

    Woods believes in nullification to "resist federal tyranny."https://mises.org/library/book/nullification-how-resist-federal-tyranny-21st-century

    Of course, if a blue state wanted to resist ICE from arresting immigrants, he wouldn't be too happy about that.

    He also believes in the right of states to secede. The Claremont Review doesn't think much of him:
    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/mainly-incorrect/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2025 at 5:29 PM

      A quote from the book on the Mises site:

      The political agenda of the old liberals was not merely to limit the size of the government but also its scope.

      "old liberals"? That's weird. Sounds like conservatives.

      Delete
    2. TonyFebruary 15, 2025 at 10:22 AM

      Woods believes in nullification to "resist federal tyranny.

      State nullification of federal law is, indeed, an idea without merit. It contradicts both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

      Within the federal government, executive nullification of judicial acts, at least to the extent of simply not acting to perform some action directed by the judiciary (i.e. an omission rather than a positive act), is not at all lacking in foundation. That has the appearance of being part of the checks and balances between the branches. Less clear would be executive positive acts that contradict the decisions of the judicial branch: the general theme of judicial interpretation of the Constitution being the final arbiter and controlling authority is constitutionally debatable, with plausible arguments on both sides.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2025 at 8:14 PM

      And the final arbiter of the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court per "Marbury v. Madison,"
      1803.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2025 at 11:01 AM

      The combination of libertarianism and traditional Catholicism one of the most insane politics-religion combos I can think of, yet its extremely common in the US for some reason. Trads, of course, view birth control as immoral, and push the idea that couples should have large families and that mothers should stay at home. They also oppose abortion, including in cases when the baby is likely to be born with a disability like Downs.

      If they had the best interests of their own religious subculture at heart, people like Woods would be left-leaning on economic questions, and support a generous welfare state. A bachelor who makes $100k is pretty well off. A father who makes $100k and has 6 kids, one with Downs, and a non working wife, is just scraping by. Same income, but more non-working dependents in the second family. The way to make the second family's life a lot easier is by introducing welfare state policies, like child allowances or universal healthcare, to get income to the non-working dependents. See https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/13/swiss-welfare-state-graphic/. Woods tells people to live a certain extremely difficult, counter-cultural lifestyle and then supports policies that make that lifestyle as difficult and unrealistic as possible for people not already from wealthy families. Its masochistic.

      Catholics 50-100 years ago (i.e. actual "traditional" Catholics, not modern LARPers) fully understood this, and supported the welfare state. https://archive.org/details/churchsocialismo00ryan; https://distributistreview.com/archive/justice-charity-review. It turns out that Fulton Sheen was basically a social democrat and that "Msgr. New Deal" strongly opposed birth control! You won't hear this on EWTN.

      Delete
    5. TonyFebruary 16, 2025 at 3:08 PM

      Ummmm, yeah. A decision by one of the 3 branches. And disputed at the time. And still debated by constitutional scholars. I have been hearing Marbury v. Madison for 50 years, so I did happen to remember that. It's always possible that the future will have a different take on it.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 7:23 AM

      I’m not a constitutional scholar, and I don’t necessarily mean to say you’re incorrect, but there’s something funny about saying the final arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court according to the Supreme Court. Don’t you think?

      Delete
    7. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 12:53 PM

      The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Some entity has to have the final word on whether some act or law violates the Constitution. As Marshall wrote:

      "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

      So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

      Delete
    8. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 10:57 AM

      Some entity has to have the final word on whether some act or law violates the Constitution.

      Perhaps this would be wise in the abstract, but this is not actually the system we have; there is no constitutional entity that has the final word on whether some act or law violates the Constitution, unless we count the People themselves, and the Framers explicitly structured the Constitution to guarantee this (we know, because they explicitly tell us). The kind of authority you are trying to attribute to the Supreme Court has been recognized even by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional -- even judicial review is structurally limited by the jurisdictional limits of the courts, and the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that it has no authority to dictate the executive or the legislative, which are co-equal branches, or to intervene in disputes between them. The Supreme Court cannot dictate to Congress its own rules or laws, and it cannot enforce anything at all without the cooperation of the President, who has the sole executive power in the Constitution. All it can do -- as Marbury v. Madison explicitly says, and which you are ignoring -- is decide cases that come before it according to the Constitution. That is indeed the essence of judicial duty: judicial, not sovereign.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousFebruary 19, 2025 at 12:50 PM

      You are absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court dictates to the Executive and Congress all the time and has been for centuries. Why do you think Trump is seeking an emergency appeal to the Court right now? He asking the court to ALLOW him to fire whistle blowers:
      https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/trump-asks-court-to-allow-firing-of-watchdog-agency-official/

      Delete
    10. TonyFebruary 20, 2025 at 6:21 PM

      You are absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court dictates to the Executive and Congress all the time and has been for centuries.

      We know that the Supreme Court has been doing this. What we question is whether it is supposed to be doing this, under the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court said, in Marbury, that it was the final arbiter, is rather suspect as evidence about the proper meaning of the Constitution, in the same way that an executor of a Will would be suspect if he declared "The Will says everything is left to me" and also "The Will says I don't have to show anyone else what the Will says." Just a little bit suspect as to that interesting correlation of motivation and results, hmmmm? The Constitution says that the final arbiter is....US! Golly, who coulda guessed?

      The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Some entity has to have the final word on whether some act or law violates the Constitution.

      I understand this enormous, incredible pressure to declare "there must be a single, final arbiter" in one of the 3 branches, I used to hold exactly that myself. But in opposition to that: the WHOLE BLOODY POINT to the 3 branches, and the checks and balances, was to make sure no one body became the overpowering tyrant. By definition, if one is the "final arbiter" of the meaning of the Constitution, they have vast incentive to use that power to then arrogate more and more of the powers to themselves over time, because "that's what it (must) mean in order to achieve the result we insist upon." And with the justices seated "for life", and it's only a few more steps to "dictator for life".

      Imagine, instead, a scenario where the Framers refused to put into the Constitution any provision that said "X is the final decider" because they didn't want such a final arbiter. Sure, such a situation is definitely more clumsy and sometimes ineffective, inefficient. You get some muddles. That can be chalked up as yet another price we pay to prevent tyranny. There's a whole boatload of such messy, difficult, muddlesome provisions in the Constitution. Why not another? If you don't presume that the Constitution MUST mean for there to be a final arbiter, you get a different take on the fact that it never says explicitly who is the final arbiter. Hence the continued debate about the soundness of Marbury. The fact that it historically was accepted is not proof that it was right, only proof that a majority of the effective decision-makers thought it was right enough to let it sit. And the fact that the Supreme Court sometimes reverses itself is proof that its decisions are not irreformable.

      Delete
  4. Michael CopasFebruary 15, 2025 at 5:35 AM

    This interview is remarkable. Extremely insightful. I hope that we have a Pope in the future that understands the rudiments of Catholic intellectual tradition (nature builds on grace and doesn't destroy it--i.e. doesn't eliminate ones principle duty to those closest to us), rebukes those that deserve it (professed Catholics who are forwarding the agenda of abortion and insane gender ideology), and avoids rebuking the non-faults of Catholics (Vance- the Pope's denial of ordo amoris) and non-Catholics (Trump- "bridges not walls") alike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael FFebruary 17, 2025 at 6:31 PM

      Medical practices for innate conditions that have always existed and which are backed by a consensus of psychiatrists are not “ideology”.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasFebruary 18, 2025 at 3:52 AM

      Michael F,

      I understand it might not appear that way to an idealogue. But for those of us who are not idealogues and who are familiar with the consensus of humanity about that little ole point that a woman is not a man and cannot become a man, appeals to the "scientific consensus" is worth about as much a burning bag on the front porch after the doorbell has been rung. I can't decide whether it should be stamped out or we should let that shit burn. So your manufactured consensus brought about through a LGBTQ pressure campaign on pschologists who need their paychecks and can't afford to lose their license is worth about as much as Fauci's manufactured "consensus" on covid.

      Perhaps pointing this out upsets you. If it does, might I suggest that you take your burning bag off the front porch and head home?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 12:48 PM

      I wasn’t referring to the idea that a man can literally become a woman, but to the fact that therapy, which is what the church generally wants to be the response to trans people, has not once worked, and that being trans is an innate condition, not a “fad”, and that the only solution is gender affirming care ASAP.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 2:01 PM

      You are becoming upset, Michael Copas. Might I suggest that you take your security blanket, put it in YOUR bag, and head home?

      Delete
    5. Michael CopasFebruary 19, 2025 at 4:13 AM

      Michael F who identifies anonymously,

      Well Michael F. I have identified multiple signs of pscyhosis in our brief interaction. The first is that you have become afraid of the concreteness of the identity "Michael F" so you have moved on to the ambiguity of "anonymous". Second, you have forgotten that you have already interacted under Michael F which means that you are also suffering from dimentia. Third, you are projecting your own fears onto others as a self defense mechanism. Fourth, you are pretending to defend LGBTQ in general when in reality you are interested in justifying your own lifestyle. Fifth, like all people, you have religious interest and are somewhat drawn to Catholicism but you are also perversely tempted to use it to justify your foregone gender ideology in the name of Cahtholicism.

      Perhaps you might take your burning bag to a good Psychologist for care?

      Delete
    6. AnonymousFebruary 19, 2025 at 5:45 AM

      “ I wasn’t referring to the idea that a man can literally become a woman, but to the fact that therapy, which is what the church generally wants to be the response to trans people, has not once worked”

      I’m going to need a cite on that to refute all the evidence I’ve seen to the contrary.

      “and that being trans is an innate condition, not a ‘fad,’ and that the only solution is gender affirming care ASAP.”

      Just because a condition isn’t a fad doesn’t mean it warrants mutilation. What about people with body integrity disorder?

      From an LGBTQQIP2SAA++ standpoint, it seems like the problem is with society, not the individual. Society says men can do this and women can’t, women can do this and men can’t, etc. Or men can wear this and look like this and women wear this other stuff and are supposed to look this other way.

      Then a person decides they want to order off the other menu. Well, if gender is the only thing holding them back, and it’s just a social construct, let’s just ditch the social construct.

      It’s almost like liberals are too lazy to work on the societal aspect so they’d rather people just mutilate themselves to conform.

      Shouldn’t we be encouraging men with so-called women’s reproductive organs and women with so-called men’s reproductive organs to accept themselves for the are and we all join together to make society understand?

      Delete
    7. AnonymousFebruary 19, 2025 at 2:00 PM

      Michael Copas,
      Actually, you are displaying signs of psychosis by thinking I am Michael F, when I am not. You are easily rattled, and I because I hit a nerve you are desperately flinging out psychological terms that you don't really understand, but which you heard your psychiatrist use during your therapy for the personality disorders that you suffer from. You post here a lot, trying trying valiantly to sound erudite, but you say nothing of substance. It's embarrassing.
      I am not LGBTQ (I have no problem with people who are), but you are clearly afraid of them. I have no religious interest, much less in Catholicism. Your church reeks of scandal. This is recent news:
      https://searchlightnm.org/why-catholic-church-in-new-mexico-wont-publicly-acknowledge-its-priests-accused-of-abuse/
      https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-saints-catholic-church-sex-abuse-77f92deb50e6333fa04a9db1897f8171
      I assume you go to confession. Confess to your priest about misjudging others. And carry your security blanket to the confessional.

      Delete
    8. Michael FFebruary 19, 2025 at 6:15 PM

      Two of the above annonymous posts, specifically the latter two, are not by me. I am not trans nor do I have any identity disorder. People don’t always type their names in on blogs, especially not when in the car and not wanting tog et a headache from typing and being in a car at the same time. Whereis your evidence that therapy has cured even one trans person, Michael Copas? If you go on Google and type “does gender affirming care work” the answer is generally yes, when coming from legit, no. Debunked scientists and not pseudoscientists like Paul Mchufh whose work has been refuted and discarded, or from religious ideologues.

      Delete
    9. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 4:02 AM

      The Anonymous Michael F.,

      Now we can add schizophrenia to the list.

      Delete
    10. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 4:45 AM

      The Anonymous Michael F.,

      I am not sure which of your personalities to speak to first. Can you toggle fairly easily between them? If so, I will just start with your more anonymous personality in my comment. It doesn't seem to me that most LGBTQ folks are the violent sort so I see no reason to fear them (Some are, but I am not Ben Shapiro calling them out on national television). Although gender dysphoria is a social contagion, my immune system for that contagion is fairly developed so I don't know what there is to fear there. Is schizophrenia contagious? Can it be transmitted through discourse in blogs? If so, let me know, cause that--rather than the trans proclivities--is the only thing that would keep me from talking with you.

      Now to address your other personality that you used to write another comment (by the way, good job spacing them out so that you didn't do them in one sitting and it seems like I am talking to more than one person). I don't recall making claims about trans therapy curing anyone and there is a very good reason I don't recall that. To assist you in your forgetfulness, why don't you reread what is above. Regarding your comment about asking the google algorithm which websites I can look at on the question of what most psychologists publicly say on an issue where if they don't tow the party line, they could lose their license: again, haven't we discussed this?

      What I am interested in is the conversion accounts of those that have de-transitioned. You seem uninterested in such accounts because you wish to suggest that it is impossible to successfully overcome homosexual and trans proclivities when their accounts show that it is not impossible. Like the difficulty of overcoming other sins and disorders, it is no doubt difficult, but also possible. Trans folks hate those that reject that lifestyle because their conversion shows that it is possible to reject that lifestyle. Again, there is no doubt change for many of these folks is enormously difficult, but it is also possible (contrary to your false suggestions otherwise).

      The fundamental question that you and I disagree on is the moral question. Those that do change recognize that they *SHOULD* change. Moral relativists deny precisely this point because they don't think that there is a moral right and wrong on such issues and/or they wrongly claim it is impossible to change (contrary to the evidence from those who do detransition). Our society has become riddled with the incoherent and utterly ridiculous philosophy of relativism (Pope Benedict rightly referred to it as the tyranny of relativism).

      When psychologists tell their patients that there is no right or wrong on sexual issues with the caveat that no one is bodily hurt, they are not being good psychologists; they are being inept philosophers. There are no empirical studies that demonstrate moral principles. You recognize those principles philosophically through reasoning. So when a psychologist or psychiatrist state that Sodomy or a man slapping on lipstick is not morally wrong, he is simply making a moral claim that is not and cannot be confirmed by lab work. He is speaking beyond his competency and is indeed speaking INcompentently as an inept philosopher.

      There is a moral aspect to every single human decision that we make including what we do when no other human beings are around. That is because we have a soul and what we do to harm the soul is not merely "our business", it affects those around us because we are communal beings. It is wrong to harm our souls just as it is wrong to mutilate our bodies. I hope to write more later on these points, but regarding the fact that we have a soul, read Feser's most recent book. Regarding moral relativism and why it is so inept, read Francis Beckwith's Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

      Delete
    11. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 8:57 AM

      Michael F,

      I now see what happened. Just as a help for the future, you should be able to easily select the name associated with your blogger account even from your phone. What happened makes sense. There is only one person that I am talking to that manifests psychological abnormalities (not you) and you are just someone who happens to be mistaken about something important, but seems open to rational discourse on the topic. The latter part of my most recent comment was addressed to you. I hope to say more soon.

      Delete
    12. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 9:05 AM

      To the courageous Mr. Anonymous who is so brave he won't even share his name,

      Mr. Anonymous. These points about security blankets seem to be relevant to someone who is afraid. So for example they might apply to someone who is unwilling to attach his name to his comments out of fear. Let's see if you can surmise who in this conversation fits that description.

      Regarding the term "transphobic", this is another means of hiding. It hides what you really mean. No one is afraid of trans people. You don't go around attacking people because you are trans, so what is there to be afraid of?

      What you and other idealogues mean by this term is that those who don't agree with you actually hate trans people. Well "phobia" doesn't mean hate and if this is what you mean, you need to have the courage (there's that theme again) and clarity to actually say what you mean.

      To respond to this charge, true acts of love for people stuck in sin and disorders is to call them to change. There you have it, love calls those who do wrong to stop doing wrong and to start doing what is right. Now for a relativist who doesn't believe in right and wrong, this is hard to accept. But if you don't believe in right and wrong, you can hardly tell someone you disagree with that it is immoral to be "transphobic". Remember, you don't believe in universal moral norms. Again, read the book: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid Air.

      Delete
    13. Michael FFebruary 20, 2025 at 9:50 AM

      Detransitioners are rare and don’t do so by conscious effort or choice. It just happens. And as I said, two of the above anonymous posts were not by me, so stop pretending they were. Your belief that I have schizophrenia etc is in a refusal to accept that those two posts were made by a different person posting anonymously.

      Delete
    14. Michael FFebruary 20, 2025 at 9:52 AM

      Also, I am not a moral relativist. I have always believed in absolute moral truth.

      Delete
    15. Michael J.February 20, 2025 at 1:53 PM

      Michael Copas, I am the Anonymous who advised you to confess and carry your security blanket, and that is still my advice. Since you are strangely disturbed by anonymity, I decided to be charitable and chose a name, but that has nothing to do with fear. Surely you realize that whether I post as Anonymous, Michael J, Michael Johnson, etc, makes no difference in cyberspace. But maybe you have some degree of obsessive compulsive disorder and you must have a name, so I accommodated you.
      I do think you fear LGBTQ people because you see that societal moral norms have changed and that frightens you. It need not. In 1950, most Americans feared interracial marriage. But laws and societal moral norms changed and now that is accepted. And just like most 1950 Americans you fear LGBTQ people. And you always will.

      Your Francis Beckwith is a conservative Catholic philosopher, so naturally he parrots the natural law chaff. And both he and you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs about morality.
      There are therapists (perhaps yours is one) who consider themselves Christian therapists, and counsel patients within the context of traditional Christian morality. But psychologists and psychiatrists need not conform to Christian morality in order to effectively do therapy and help those afflicted with mental health symptoms.
      Mutilating one's body is not the same as "harming one's soul." That is your moral belief, but fortunately, it is not the law. No amount of your "rational discourse" will change that. And if you can't even spell "pschyosis" or "dimentia" correctly, please don't embarrass yourself by using psychiatric terms that you don't understand.

      Delete
    16. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 4:43 PM

      Michael J,

      Well done! It takes alot of courage to make small steps like that. You now have attached your name and have even hinted at what your last name might be. Way to go buddy, you are making progress in overcoming those fears.

      Now another obstacle that might be frightening is to actually read more than the title of the book recommendation I made. I know. I know. Its terrifying. But I want you to follow my suggestions here just like you did in adding your name to your posts. Just trust me on this like you did and I will help you along. I will be here with you every step of the way.

      Once you read Beckwith's book and read a bit deeper into his bio, you will learn two things. First, you will find out that he was not Catholic when he wrote that book. Second, you will find out that his argument in the book is not based on natural law. He is arguing for the incoherence of moral relativism through retorsion. I know that these are big words, but put on those big boy pants and actually open that frightened and closed mind of yours to actually consider the position of someone you may not at first agree with. Again, I know its terrifying and it took courage for you to look even bring yourself to the keyboard to type the title of the book. But hang in there and actually go to amazon to pull up the title. Fight the temptation to run away from the computer screaming and crying and buy the book. You can do, big guy.

      You put up your name just like I said, now follow my advice here too. Just listen to what I say just like you did with posting your name. Step by step we will get you to overcome those fears little buddy.

      Delete
    17. AnonymousFebruary 20, 2025 at 5:46 PM

      I do think you fear LGBTQ people because you see that societal moral norms have changed and that frightens you. It need not. In 1950, most Americans feared interracial marriage. But laws and societal moral norms changed and now that is accepted. And just like most 1950 Americans you fear LGBTQ people. And you always will.

      Like most people repeating the liberal line, you don't really get it: Underlying the KGB-LBTGXQFASCIST1+-/ trope that they are just "changing the cultural norms" is a philosophical model that divorces all culture from moral principles, and ultimately winds up denying that there is anything real that corresponds to moral principles. It means not just a change in society and its morals, it is a denial of and destruction of the very possibility of morals and of of society. After all, "culture" has its root in "cult": a people's culture springs from what it holds holy, sacred, or at least fundamentally right-minded. If your philosophical system eradicates any possible model of a society-wide cult, a society-wide standard of rightness, it eradicates society. You are left with masses of individuals who just happen to live close to each other, not a society.

      Delete
    18. Michael CopasFebruary 20, 2025 at 5:51 PM

      Michael J,

      You know I just realized that you are afraid to read this book by Beckwith because you are terrified of Catholics and Natural Law and that when the two are combined, you start convulsing in terror.

      This makes my last comment good news for you. The book is written by two authors who produced the volume as non Catholics. This takes away one of your fears! The down side is that you don't get a chance to face that fear, but the good news is that it makes it easier for you to read the book. Second, since it is not about natural law, you don't have to put on those big boy pants to read about natural law either!

      As I thought more about this, however, I suspect that "natural law" means to you something like "the boogey man in my closet at night." Regarding this, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that nature and its laws are closer to you that even your closet. I probably shouldn't tell you that right before your bedtime, but it is true.

      However, there is also good news. As you don't even know what natural law is, you are afraid of something that you don't understand. You mean by natural law "that scary thing in my closet that might frighten me at night." However, natural law is not that scary thing in your closet. So, why don't you let go of those fearful images and try to actually state precisely what you think natural law is and why you think that there is no natural law.

      Now since you don't know what it is, you will need to do some research with your handy dandy google search. But if this is necessary, this means that you have been afraid of something you don't understand. Isn't that silly? Shouldn't you overcome these fears of what you don't understand? More food for thought in your efforts to overcome your fears.

      Now, after you have a good laugh about the silliness of being afraid of what you don't understand, go ahead and actually do your google research anyways and try to actually understand natural law. Try to read about it from those that understand it. If you need references, I can provide them. Be sure to make an honest effort and tell me precisely what it is and precisely why it cannot be true (your foregone conclusion about something that you don't even understand).

      Again, take your time to make sure you understand it. Maybe as you understand it, you will stop having bad dreams about it. At the least you can explain to me why you reject it rather than treating it like a boogey man in your closet.

      Delete
    19. Michael J.February 21, 2025 at 1:59 PM

      My dear Michael,
      I expected better from you. I did read the little book by Beckwith. You were smitten by it. I was not. "The Book of Absolutes" is better.
      I know natural law fairly well. I have the original edition of "Known From the Things That Are," by Rev. Martin O'Keefe, S.J. (among other natural law books), which I read when I was at the University of St Thomas, Center for Thomistic studies. I studied under Prof. Christopher Martin, who recently retired. Dr Feser has often referred to his book "Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations," as one of the finest expositions of the Five Ways, and it is. He was a wonderful professor, a Scotsman, brilliant with a great sense of humor. Here is a link to help you:
      https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Aquinas-Explanations-Christopher-Martin/dp/0748609016

      But then I went off for my M.A. at Western Michigan Univ. and studied under the atheist philosopher, Quentin Smith, and changed my outlook entirely. Dr Feser, to his great credit, eloquently eulogized him on this blog. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/02/smith-and-divine-eternity.html

      Yes, I know about retorsion. It's part of Transcendental Thomism. Joseph Donceel, SJ, developed an argument for God's existence based on it in a philosophy anthology that I read at U. St. Thomas. Prof Martin did not think much of it.

      Now, Michael, let me try to help you. As I said, when you get rattled, you go way off message and you just flail around looking for something to say, hoping what you fling will find its mark, but you miss, and you fail. But, you did the best you could, given your limitations. You are not a good apologist, not a good scholar, and not even a good writer. Study Dr Feser's blogs very carefully. I disagree with him, but he is a brilliant philosopher, a master apologist, and an excellent prose stylist. All the things you will never be.
      You are right about one thing, though. I did have a "good laugh." At your vapidity.


      Delete
    20. Michael CopasFebruary 21, 2025 at 4:22 PM

      Michael J,

      Off message? You mean I won't let you get by with not answering my question about your understanding of natural law? Oh if that is "off message" then yes, I am for sure "off message." Continuing that "off message" theme: where is your explanation of natural law? And why did you think that Beckwith's book was about natural law? Ah right, because you hadn't read it. You dismiss books you haven't read just like you dismiss topics you don't understand. If you think you do understand natural law, then go ahead and tell me what it is and then tell me why you think it doesn't exist. On the edge of my seat.

      Delete
    21. Michael CopasFebruary 21, 2025 at 5:22 PM

      Michael J,

      I see you like ending with zingers. They are fun.

      "you can't even spell "pschyosis" or "dimentia" correctly"

      Boy you got me here. But you have to remember that I don't have the benefit of reading these terms on my daily meds like you do. BOOM!

      "All the things you will never be."

      Oh Michael J. Please don't give up on me. Please please please believe in me. If you don't admire me like you admire Edward Feser I might just......not care. BOOM AGAIN!

      "You are right about one thing, though. I did have a "good laugh." At your vapidity."

      BOOM! It's like wrestle mania here with all your zingers. Do you wear a mask, face paint, and wrestling tights while you type these? Do you imagine yourself flying off the top rope or perhaps you are a hit with the metal chair sort of fellow.

      Zingers are like the WWF of discourse. Lots of smoke, no heat. If you had capacity for substantive discourse, you would write about your understanding of natural law and why you think it does not exist. If you aren't able to do that, it's okay. Even bad zingers are mildly amusing.

      This last one however needed a pause "good laugh....at your vapidity". It really doesn't work in writing. It would work as a sort of farcical insult where you are joking with a friend and they know its not a real insult. Maybe that's what you have in mind. You just want to be my friend. You did after all call me "dear Michael". Well good buddy, I hope you have a good nights rest.

      Delete
    22. Michael CopasFebruary 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM

      "Yes, I know about retorsion. It's part of Transcendental Thomism."

      You really haven't a clue what you are talking about. Retorsion is a logical and rhetorical device wherein you show that someone's philosophy is not and/or cannot be lived out by the person purporting to be an adherent of a philosophy. Its really quite easy to do with moral relativism.

      Transcendental Thomism on the other hand is associated with Karl Rahner among other figures and retorsion is not even a distinctive characteristic of trascendental Thomism much less exclusive to it. So its clear you don't know what you are talking about.

      Stick with zingers. Its something that you clearly like to do and it can at least amuse readers of this blog since you have no substantive contribution to offer. Still waiting on your explanation of natural law and would be interested to hear you summarize Beckwith's argument and to state with specificity why it fails. This would give you an opportunity to show that there is some real intellectual substance under your WWF mask.

      Delete
    23. Michael JFebruary 22, 2025 at 12:30 PM

      Michael,
      I have good news and bad news for you. I see no misspellings, but are becoming more unhinged. Beckwith's little book on moral relativism defends moral objectivism, which is based on natural law. As a matter of fact, he says so himself:
      https://thomisticinstitute.org/sed-contra/moral-relativism-and-the-natural-law
      You didn't know that about a book you admire so much?

      Retorsion, "is affirming a truth by the act of denying it. "The Searching Mind," Donceel, pg 11.
      As for Transcendental Thomism, well, Michael, you are clueless about it:
      “This explains the great importance of ‘retorsion’ in Transcendental Thomism. ‘Retorsion’ is a technical term which refers to the method of demonstrating an assertion by showing that he who denies the assertion affirms it in his very denial.”
      Donceel, “Transcendental Thomism,” p. 81. For Maréchal's key exercise of retorsion, see Donceel, Joseph, A Marécha1 Reader, (New York. Herder and Herder, 1970.
      Do you see how WRONG you are and how you have twice embarrassed yourself?

      I called you Dear Michael out of sarcasm, you can't see that?
      You are all over the place with Boogymen, bad dreams, WWF. So bizarre. I guess you watch WWF a lot. WWF is fake, but the guys are big and strong, and you wish you were too, right? In your dreams?

      I did see a glimmer of hope for you, right here when you posted about DBH:
      "One good that it has done for me is to make me desire to be more virtuous and forgiving."
      You definitely need to be more virtuous, but it will take a lot of work because you are brittle and fall apart when people argue with you. I find it amusing to see you unravel, but I know you want to be a Christian apologist. So, get a good spiritual adviser, and a therapist and, hopefully, you can better understand yourself and find your way in life.

      Delete
    24. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 7:15 AM

      Michael F,

      Embarrased? Mr. Michael F. you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I care about what you think. Didn't you get disabused of that idea from previous posts. There is really not anyone here that cares whatever you want to rant about other than you.

      I know that you like anonymous encounters. Well there is an anonymous above that has told you what he thinks of your drivel, so you might talk with him. Maybe you can get him to share his name. If he is as easily baited as you are you can get him to read a book that your recommend and post a name just like I did with you. However, I suspect that he is more reasonable than you based on is comment and assessment of your contribution.

      Regarding Beckwith's post, yes, Beckwith recognizes natural law and yes the post you read shows their interaction. However, that post is NOT the topic of his book. So, it appears that you pretended to read the book and actually read something you found online. You do alot of pretending don't you?

      "Beckwith's little book on moral relativism defends moral objectivism, which is based on natural law."

      You don't have to be a natural law theorist to believe that there are morally objective norms, so again you don't know what you are talking about.

      "This explains the great importance of ‘retorsion’ in Transcendental Thomism. ‘Retorsion’ is a technical term which refers to the method of demonstrating an assertion by showing that he who denies the assertion affirms it in his very denial.”

      This definition from Donceel is precise and correct. (The first definition you provided by Donceel is not as precise and it misleading it suggests that retorsion involves undermining the Principle of Non-contradiction.) However this does not mean that retorsion is a distinctive feature of transcendental Thomism as your initial comment wrongly suggested. To state otherwise is like suggesting that because the principle of identity or the principle of non-contradiction are used in some philosophical school, they are distinctive features of that school. That is sheer non-sense as PI and PNC are fundamental to all logic and for that reason pervade all reasoning in whatever philosophical system. The same is true of retorsion which relies on the PNC. So my good buddy, you are out of your depth in your assertions and you need to keep playing in the kiddy pool of zingers like I suggested (I noticed you have some in there and if I have some free time, I will come down to your kiddy pool for zinger play).

      I think what has happened is you had some classes from the University of St. Thomas that were no doubt good, but you were in over your head and didn't understand what you were taught. You kept your original text from that class (that text is dated my dear old friend) and that is the only academic reference you have in your little library on the topics you are pontificating on. Well that is not a good way to get a well formed opinion on a topic. You have to read more broadly to make sure you actually understand what you are reading. In your case, you might grab a logic book or two as a good start and that will help with structuring arguments where you don't just have to play in the kiddy pool with zingers.

      Regarding you calling me "dear Michael", I am devastated that you don't really want to be my friend. Just devastated. I thought you were the sincere sort and I am shocked that an upstanding person like yourself would not make good on your offer of friendship. Just shocked. You will perhaps notice here that my response is dripping with something was also in my responses above. Let's see if you can successfully detect what it is.

      Delete
    25. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 7:15 AM

      "You definitely need to be more virtuous"

      This is one of the things in your post that I whole heartedly agree with. Why don't you say a prayer for me that I become virtuous? And perhaps you can aspire to virtue yourself. That would be a wonderful and fruitful result from our exchange if we both sought to grow in the cardinal virtues of justice, fortitude, temperance, and prudence and in the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. All the best to you in your sincere efforts to do this.

      Delete
    26. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 8:40 AM

      Michael F,

      One other point that might help you to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I regret that your academic resources are limited to a single 45 year old text book and whatever you are able to find online, but I think there is a good lesson here. If you don't understand a term, you shouldn't imagine that thumbing the index of a single old textbook is going to give you a thorough understanding of whatever it is you are trying to understand. This is particularly the case if you don't read it carefully and then begin to imagine that rudimentary principles of logic or rhetoric are distinctive features of some philosophy just because they are mentioned in association with that philosophy. I am glad you continue to have interest in these topic years after your initial undergraduate coursework, but it is delusional to think that you understand them because you have thumbed the index of an old textbook. You will have to read more broadly and do so with the goal of learning if you want to understand a topic like natural law in a substantive way.

      Delete
    27. Michael J.February 23, 2025 at 12:40 PM

      Wrong again, Michael. I did major and got my B.A in phil at UThomas and M.A. at WMU. But I never used them. I went to work in healthcare instead. Pays much better
      I have many books in my personal lib. But you see philosophy books don't become outdated like science books. People still read the Summa Theologica even though it's centuries old. Right? In his book "Aquinas" Feser references many books written decades ago. For ethics, Cronin's "The Science of Ethics," remains a classic. And "Moral Philosophy" by Maritain, and others. "Knowing the Natural Law" by Jensesn, 2020 is my probably my latest acquisition. But it doesn't add much to what has already been written.
      Retorsion is very much associated with Transcendental Thomism. If you were better educated, you would know that.
      http://www.anthonyflood.com/moleskiretortion.htm

      You don't read well. I said Beckwith's book (which you are obsessed with) was based on it and Beckwith says so himself! That surprised you, didn't it? His little book is not a serious book. It's folksy, with lots of anecdotes. You think someone is going to read that and be convinced? Doesn't work that way.
      Rahner was associated with transcendental Thomism, but Marechal was the dominant thinker in transcendental philosophy, the "pioneer."
      https://www.jhiblog.org/2023/03/03/an-historical-approach-to-self-knowledge-fr-joseph-marechal-sj-as-a-jesuit-thinker/
      So was Maurice Blondel and others.

      I don't believe in prayer, but for you, because you believe in it and it may ease your anxiety, I will pray for you. From other posts you have made over the years, I do detect virtue. But there seems to be a "good Michael Copas" and a "bad Michael Compas." You become easily riled like you did with Michael F. You need to ask yourself why. Maybe through prayer, you will receive an answer.


      Delete
    28. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 2:22 PM

      The dated point is relevant because transcendental Thomism is in fact dated and it hasn't aged well having few adherents today's. If retorsion were a distinctive feature of Thomism, retorsion wouldn't be much around as you find few defending Transcendental Thomism but many still using retorsion. That was the entire point where you were confused and the entire point I corrected you on. You're welcome.

      Delete
    29. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 3:14 PM

      "But I never used them."

      That much is clear.

      "I said Beckwith's book (which you are obsessed with) was based on it"

      Based on what? Retorsion? Well yes that is what I said. Based on natural law? No. It wasn't. It defends moral realism which is also upheld by natural law but all moral realists are not natural law theorists. Moral realism and natural law are not coextensive.

      "Beckwith says so himself"

      Says what? That his relativism book is *about* natural law? Why don't you provide a quote and I can point out to you how you are misinterpreting it as I have already done with the other quotes you have misinterpreted.

      "Rahner was associated with transcendental Thomism, but Marechal was the dominant thinker in transcendental philosophy, the "pioneer.""

      Well that's all true and it shows that retorsion is a distinctive feature of transcendental Thomism (your suggestion) in no way at all.

      "I do detect virtue."

      It is a wonder that you are still laboring under the delusion that I or anyone else here is concerned about what you think of them.

      If you provided arguments I would be very interested in those. But you don't. Your posts are simply marked by vitriol (much like DBH) reflecting your own viciousness and insecurity. You have lots of insults, but little of substance to say.

      Also, you boomers have such a weird fetish for armchair psychoanalysis. Since you like this, why don't we psychoanalyze you? Then you would be psychoanalyzing the one person who might actually care about what you think. So, do you have a successful marriage? Are you happy? Do you have sustained relationships and a fulfilling career? Just lay back on that couch and let's figure you out.

      Delete
    30. Michael CopasFebruary 23, 2025 at 4:26 PM

      The psychoanalyzing boomer Michael J,

      Other questions to add to your psychoanalysis. Are you retired? Is posting on here the highlight of your day? Do you spend hours thinking of zingers and spell checking your post? Is that a fulfilling existence? Do you feel safe enough to answer honestly or are you tempted to lie? Don't worry Michael J. This is a safe space. Let's talk through why you feel the need to be vitriolic rather than addressing questions of substance (what again is natural law and why do you think it is false?).

      Delete
    31. Michael J.February 24, 2025 at 4:37 PM

      Michael,
      My prayers for you have not yet born fruit, but I will persevere.
      "It is a wonder that you are still laboring under the delusion that I or anyone else here is concerned about what you think of them." But YOU care because you keep replying.

      "I regret that your academic resources are limited to a single 45 year old text book."
      I have about 1,000. As for being 45 years old, here is a list of Thomistic books that Feser recommends that are considerably older than 45 years. Most of which I have.
      http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/scholastics-bookshelf-part-ii.html

      "You have lots of insults."
      I just responded to yours, starting with your insult to Michael F. on Feb 19.
      "I can't decide whether it should be stamped out or we should let that shit burn."

      "Do you spend hours thinking of zingers and spell checking your post?"
      No, they easily to me and they hit their mark but yours miss. It's you who needs to spell check.

      "...rather than addressing questions of substance."
      And you rant on bizarrely about "WWF, bad dreams, boogeyman, scary things in my closet." Can you not see how weird you are?

      "The dated point is relevant because transcendental Thomism is in fact dated and it hasn't aged well having few adherents today's. "
      I will quote from one of my professors, Dr John Knasas at U St Thomas
      https://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/john.htm
      "All three of the above currents streamed into Vatican II. But, as a matter of historical fact, only Transcendental Thomism emerged with any vibrancy. In the time since and especially in its use by theologians Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, and Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Transcendental Thomism has been the reigning Thomism. "

      You want a quote from Beckwith about his book being based on natural law?

      "So where does all this tie in to the natural law? As should be evident in the way I’ve critiqued relativism, I’ve made a kind of backwards case for the natural law. I started with the moral and immoral rules we seem to already know. This demonstrates that our minds already operate such a way that we presuppose what Aquinas called the primary precepts of the natural law."

      Retorsion is indeed "distinctive feature of Transcendental Thomism'"
      https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/ama/Many/Many104.pdf
      " This procedure they call: retorsion
      or performative self-contradiction. 3 The veracity of sense is confined by its
      occurrence within the self-validating context of the mind's a priori. Realist
      epistemology is done from the top down. The crucial and defining moment of
      the methodology is the application of retorsion."

      " It defends moral realism which is also upheld by natural law but all moral realists are not natural law theorists."
      Well, I never said they were. I said Beckwith's book was based on moral objectivism, which intertwines with natural law.
      "In perhaps its most basic sense, to invoke natural law is to affirm moral objectivity and to acknowledge a standard that transcends positive or civil law. "
      https://lawliberty.org/what-natural-law-can-and-cant-do/

      "Are you retired?" Again, Michael, you're so anxious to write your posts that you don't read what I wrote:
      Michael J.February 23, 2025 at 12:40 PM "I went to work in healthcare instead. Pays much better." And it keeps me quite busy, which is why I don't spend so much time writing as you. Nevertheless, I find it amusing to respond to you. As for my personal life, I am divorced but now living with my girlfriend. I am quite happy. As a Registered Nurse in a busy Emergency Department, I see the best and worst of humanity. It's hard work, mentally, physically and emotionally demanding, but it is fulfilling and that kind of work definitely forms bonds of friendship with one's co-workers. It is not something you could do.

      Delete
  5. Vini TadeoFebruary 15, 2025 at 6:48 AM

    By the way, the difference between continental philosophy and analytical philosophy pointed by Ed was very accurate. But I think both cause anyone to wish to blow their brains out (especially layman like me). The only difference is the relevant factors.

    On one hand, analytic philosophy presents itself with something like "(E1) (Vx)(Vy)((Event(x) & Event(y)) = (x = y © (Vz)(Event(z) > ((Cause(x, z) <> Cause(y, z)) & (Cause(z, x) < Cause(z, y))))))" and this sounds like high school mathematics and physics (I had some problems inputting some characters, but that's just an illustrative example).

    On the other hand, continental philosophy has something like "[insert the cliché existentialist philosopher incomprehensible rant here]" kind of thing.

    In short, analytic philosophy may sound incomprehensible because it has so much technicality and it seems like a mimic derived from the specialized sciences sometimes. On the other side, continental philosophy is unintelligible because it lacks objectivity -- and it delves into extreme subjectivism -- and, at the end of the day, fails to provide the answers to our deepest questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ThunderjerkyFebruary 17, 2025 at 8:42 AM

      You've clearly never read much continental philosophy. This is a vapid account of the school lol

      Delete
    2. Vini TadeoFebruary 17, 2025 at 12:00 PM

      Thunderjerky,

      Oh yeah, wiseguy? Perhaps it was your misperception about the intent of my post (It was supposed to be a satire, but I Guess you never get It).

      FYI, during my university years I studied continental philosophy. And I must say that beyond the usual Marxist and other ideologues that somehow find attraction in pseudo-philosophers like Freud you could try to extracto something meaningful (even though you barelly find authors engaging with adverse ideologies in a meaningful way).

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 12:11 PM

      Thunderjerk, your statement clearly shows your own vapidity.

      Delete
    4. ThunderjerkyFebruary 18, 2025 at 7:28 AM

      " Perhaps it was your misperception about the intent of my post (It was supposed to be a satire, but I Guess you never get It)."

      Oh satire?

      "On the other side, continental philosophy is unintelligible because it lacks objectivity -- and it delves into extreme subjectivism -- and, at the end of the day, fails to provide the answers to our deepest questions"

      Yeah, that reads like satire! Nothing more satirical than repeating the most overplayed critique leveled at the continental school!

      Delete
    5. Vini TadeoFebruary 18, 2025 at 3:08 PM

      Got under your skin so much?

      Delete
  6. Miguel CervantesFebruary 15, 2025 at 8:51 PM

    The bottom line remains: what is more conducive towards the de-Christianisation of the United States? The continuing presence of 10 million "illegal" hard-working Catholics; or their removal and replacement by 10 million Hindus and Sikhs, as per the Trump/Musk/Stephen Miller policy?

    I would answer, the second. The Trump/Musk/Miller policy is therefore the ultimate uncharitable act towards the United States, which Vance's fake moralising will never cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 7:25 AM

      I don’t know about that. Plenty of Catholics are Catholics in name only and even directly work to promote anti-Catholic policies (look at a significant percentage of Democrats for example) so who’s to say which is worse?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 2:36 PM

      Unfortunately, according to Pope Francis, we aren't allowed to make determinations on this topic based on such considerations.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 8:18 PM

      Even a society of nominal Catholics is better than one of Hindus, Sikh, Southern Baptists etc etc.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 19, 2025 at 5:22 AM

      “Even a society of nominal Catholics is better than one of Hindus, Sikh, Southern Baptists etc etc.”

      I’ll take a Southern Baptist over Nancy Pelosi any day. Anyone prolife would make that trade.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousFebruary 19, 2025 at 6:28 PM

      I didn't,t say a society of Southern Baptists. Mark well the mix that's on the cards.

      Delete
    6. CosmicCatFebruary 20, 2025 at 4:47 AM

      @Anonymous

      Southern Baptist is basically a simplified version of the Catholic Church. They shouldn't be treated as something different please.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2025 at 6:24 AM

    I think there is too much focus on Trump's specific policies and not enough on the "big picture" of where the conservative movement is going. A lot of the of tech billionaires supporting Trump appear to be supportive of scientific racism (a/k/a hereditarianism). They think the average black person (and probably Latino) is cognitively impaired due to some inherit genetic inferiority and fit only for low skill work, and that lower classes generally are inferior to the upper classes--this explains why they don't attack legacy admissions to Ivy League universities along with affirmative action. Charles Murray was pushing these ideas in the 90s with the publication of The Bell Curve, but got a lot of pushback at the time. Its fairly obvious that at a minimum Musk, Theil, and Andreeson are supportive of these ideas. Just look at what happened to X/Twitter after Musk's purchase. The anti-racism group Hope Not Hate had an exposé recently where they uncovered that Andreeson was a subscriber to a racist hereditarian website (Aporia) (that same piece argues that the group running Aporia itself is the legal successor to the Neo-Nazi Pioneer Fund). Fringe racist figures like Steve Sailer, Curtis Yarvin, and Richard Hannania are all getting access to the mainstream, donor-backed, conservative movement. The leftist writer John Ganz calls this "groyperification", where the mainstream right gets overwhelmed by far-right memes and eventually the border between the far-right and normal GOP dissolves. I think in 5-10 years you'll start seeing these kind of outright racist ideas even in the National Review, WSJ, and other "establishment" GOP platforms. The GOP will trend towards being a more or less explicitly racist/white nationalist party. That's apparently what the donors want now, and lower-level movement activists are just going to go along with it.

    Not only is hereditarianism crank pseudoscience garbage, but as the GOP becomes more explicitly racist in its messaging, the very close association between Catholics and the party will risk causing a huge amount of harm to the church's reputation. Conservative Catholic media figures are going to feel compelled to jump through all sorts of logical hoops to make Catholicism consistent with neo-eugenics and racial animus (remember "Positive Christianity"?), and this is going to make the Catholic faith extremely alienating and unappealing to a large swath of the public. Only those 100% on board with the GOP's political platform are going to feel comfortable in the pews. Vance spreading Neo-Nazi libels about Haitians eating cats is just the start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerFebruary 16, 2025 at 1:05 PM

      I don't think our local Hispanic hereditarianist/ supremicist could be considered a conservative.

      Delete
    2. TonyFebruary 16, 2025 at 3:04 PM

      and not enough on the "big picture" of where the conservative movement is going. A lot of the of tech billionaires supporting Trump

      I have no problem suggesting that more attention is needed on where Trump and the tech hotshots are pushing. I have a LOT of problem with assuming this is anything related to "conservatism". Trump spent 60 years being an out-and-out Democrat. He "became" a so-called "conservative" only in the accidental sense that when the Democrat party swung triple-hard left, he stayed put, allowing the also-left-moving but unthinking Republicans to find him sitting there. Musk leaned Democrat until recently, also. These people are not conservative in a principled sense, although they have at least started to get the idea of smaller government.

      appear to be supportive of scientific racism (a/k/a hereditarianism). They think the average black person (and probably Latino) is cognitively impaired due to some inherit genetic inferiority and fit only for low skill work, and that lower classes generally are inferior to the upper classes

      This kind of view is neither a critical part of conservatism, nor only found on the right. The Democrats were in favor of eugenics 100 years ago, and other left-wing groups are comfortable with some sort of racial eugenicism. (Not to mention the many groups pushing the racist portion of the woke agenda, so it's not like racism is only found in the eugenics nor only on the right.)

      Only those 100% on board with the GOP's political platform are going to feel comfortable in the pews.

      Heh, I am not sure, but does this suggest that there will be more people in the pews than there have been?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 7:32 AM

      Maybe if Democrats weren’t the party that called wolf, they’d have some credibility to get people to consider those concerns. Unfortunately, they’ve partnered with the media to view Trump’s every move as racist or fascist. Now, if those concerns are valid, I doubt anyone will take them seriously until it’s too late.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2025 at 10:34 AM

    What Feser fails to acknowledge is that illegal immigrants living and working in the US are part of American society. They are not "strangers" like prospective immigrants living on the other side of the world might be. They are people who live here, work here, contribute to the economy, pay (consumption) taxes, and have social ties to the community. But by having an illegal status, they are not able to avail themselves of the normal protections awarded to workers under US labor law (minimum wage, OSHA, etc.) and if they complain about unfair working conditions, they can be threatened by deportation by their bosses. Depriving a worker of his just wages is a "sin crying out to heaven" and one could argue that something like this goes on this illegal immigrants. In most of these cases, justice can be better served by giving illegal immigrants either citizenship or a more regularized status under US law rather than extracting them from US society and deporting them back to Latin America. Its also worth noting that most of these immigrants are coming from neighboring countries whose economic conditions are heavily impacted by policy decisions made in Washington. If Latin American countries are undergoing economic or civil strife compelling large numbers to try to emigrate to the US illegally, the US owns that problem, at least in part.

    Two secular ideologies that have absolutely nothing to due with Catholic teaching are trying to manipulate and warp Catholic attitudes on political questions.

    Woods is an deontological libertarian and outright dissents from Church teaching regarding questions of the proper role of the state in economy; he thinks its morally wrong for the state to impose the labor rights I discuss above on private employers, so it really doesn't matter if illegals lack these rights. He thinks that property rights and procedural justice always trump questions of social justice.

    Nationalists view the nation (or the "race") as a kind of "big family", so it makes sense that moral obligations will come first to the "nation" and only later to other nations. Yet as I stated above, illegal immigrants living in the US are, for all intents and purpose, part of US society. Even if we grant the premises of the ordo amoris, an illegal who lives in my community isn't any more "distant" than a natural-born citizen. They only become more "distant" if secular nationalist ideas come into play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerFebruary 17, 2025 at 11:25 AM

      Yet as I stated above, illegal immigrants living in the US are, for all intents and purpose, part of US society.

      They are your family in the same way I would be your family if I showed up and started squatting in your home uninvited.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 4:11 PM

      They are people who live here, work here, contribute to the economy, pay (consumption) taxes, and have social ties to the community. But by having an illegal status, they are...

      ...defectively here within the US, damaging the labor system, damaging the social structure's economic cues with regard to the needed balance between work, tax, and government services, damaging respect for law as such, and constituting a political infection for one party to co-opt for political gain.

      The only way you could have a just and sensible policy for a "let them stay here" program would be to require them to come forward immediately to sign up, get IDed and fingerprinted, tell-all about their compatriots they also know are here illegally, prove working status, and commit to not only paying all back taxes (income, social security, etc) but also paying extra taxes that will (over time) offset the economic damage to social services and to the justice system, get at the end of the line behind people who came here legally for official citizenship status, learn English to at least an 8th grade level, AND stay out of trouble with the rest of criminal law. (And yes, when they prove their working status, we will go after their employers and force them to comply with back wages, etc.) But such a mandate is impossible to pass in law, and impossible to administer, so it is not feasible. Reagan administration passed a law that was a good deal softer than outlined above, and it also failed to handle the problems.

      Delete
  9. NLRFebruary 16, 2025 at 1:16 PM

    I would agree that the whole ideology that anonymous (2/16, 6:24 am) references is wrongheaded, though from a somewhat different perspective.

    I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but there's certainly a family resemblance in the ideas. The real problem is that it's an inhuman ideology. They view people as interchangeable economic widgets in the global economy. That idea has been harmful to every ethnicity.

    Also, people have a mistaken idea that IQ tests are foolproof and if we used them as a social sorting system things would be more fair. First of all, IQ tests can be studied for. Matrix reasoning, for instance, is a skill that can be trained. It's not trivial to get better at it, but it can be done.

    But more importantly, people frequently want to stack the deck for their own family, friends or other favored people. Very few people truly believe in an impartial meritocracy. If IQ tests started becoming high stakes, then we would start seeing this. Actually, it has already happened. Many years ago, it was reported that prestigious preschools in New York City who picked their students with an IQ test had parents trying to prepare their children. They would get coaches to help their children practice on the parts of the tests that could best be studied for.

    People always want to make the perfect system and yes, systems can be better or worse. But it's ultimately not about the system, it's about the people. John Adams knew that over 200 years ago. As he said:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

    I don't know what John Adams's IQ was, but he was definitely an insightful individual.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2025 at 9:26 PM

    Doesn't matter how many immigrants Trump deports. By 2050, the USA will not be majority white. It is irreversible.
    https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/blog/2019/05/03/the-us-white-majority-will-soon-disappear-forever/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2025 at 4:22 PM

      Simply irrelevant to anything. Would be fine if the country became 90% black, if they went back 99% to America's Christian roots and became once more the America whose principles became manifested in custom and law again.

      Even without doing anything special, with the existing make-up, in 2 generations 70% of individuals will be a smorgasbord mixture of several flavors of white, of black, and of Hispanic background. At that point, nobody cares whether you had 2 Native American, 5 black, 3 Asian, 4 Hispanic, and 4 non-Hispanic white great grandparents, or some other ratio. Big flipping deal.

      Delete
    2. Michael FFebruary 17, 2025 at 6:35 PM

      Is that a bad thing to you?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 1:15 PM

      Anonymous, "Would be fine if they went back 99% to our Christian roots." That won't happen. The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christian is at an all-time low (68% compared to 96% in 1956) and that trend will only accelerate in the coming years. The USA of 1956 is gone forever. I think that is a "big flipping deal" for you, but you will just have to get used to it. For many people rural, working class Americans who see America changing racially and religiously, that is also a " big flipping deal."

      "The demographic shift in the U.S. has resulted in many whites proclaiming that they are losing their country, and that they already are or will soon become a minority group.
      In her research on working-class whites in rural Louisiana, sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild observes that many whites feel frustrated and betrayed, like they are now strangers in their own land. In Trump, they saw a white man who brought them together to take their country back. Hochschild points out that at a Trump campaign rally, whites held signs with slogans such as “TRUMP: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” and “SILENT MAJORITY STANDS WITH TRUMP.”

      They too will have to get used to it.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 1:20 PM

      Michael F.
      No, that is not a "bad thing" for me. I am bi-racial.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousFebruary 20, 2025 at 5:34 PM

      Anonymous, "Would be fine if they went back 99% to our Christian roots." That won't happen.

      I didn't say I thought it would, I said it would be fine if it did. Sheesh, notice what people are claiming, would'ja?

      Delete
    6. AnonymousFebruary 21, 2025 at 11:59 AM

      "
      Simply irrelevant to anything. Would be fine if the country became 90% black, if they went back 99% to America's Christian roots and became once more the America whose principles became manifested in custom and law again."
      You do really do want the country to go back to its Christian roots, not that "it would be fine." Sheesh, read what you wrote, would, ja?

      Delete
  11. AnonymousFebruary 18, 2025 at 9:18 AM

    I haven't listened to the interview, but I will, when I get the time as I find Dr. Feser to always share a perspective worth considering.

    I will say I have a growing ambivalence toward the prospect of deporting "everyone" who is an illegal alien. Deport criminals? duh. Economic leeches? Sure. Those who crossed a duly protect border? Likely.

    What about those who at great risk to their families walked here from a thousand miles away because they had the understanding that the U.S. government would facilitate their settlement in the land of opportunity? People who have kids born here with established friend groups and who know nothing other than our opulent way of life, who work hard, and who contribute to the common weal in many other ways? I'm very uncomfortable with that.

    Worried about driving down American wages? Normalize their status (special work visa? special green card?) and allow them to work above board and collectively bargain for higher wages.

    If a law is not enforced, is it still a law? If a law is not just not enforced but actively undermined by its own government, is it still a law?

    Imagine a police department financially rewarding people for breaking the speed limit, would the speed limit actually be a law at that point or just a piece of paper?

    The rule of law and immigration laws are not absolute goods in themselves, and should in principle, be able to be overridden, in a common good analysis.

    It seems to me that we need to do everything we can, including using the military to lock down the border to prevent all illegal crossings from occurring.

    However, we need to be willing to pay the price for the criminal lack of enforcement of our borders. Unless we are going to severely punish all the elected officials and bureacrats who undermined our laws, why punish those who escaped destitution? Why all clemency for me and none for thee?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyFebruary 23, 2025 at 12:52 PM

      The rule of law and immigration laws are not absolute goods in themselves, and should in principle, be able to be overridden, in a common good analysis.

      It's true that immigration laws are not absolute goods in themselves. As to the "rule of law", that's not so simple: "Law" covers a lot of territory, including Divine law, which is an expression of the Divine nature in respect of the order of creatures as that order is pre-eminently contained in God’s providential design. The psalms show how this law is part of God himself, which evokes our reverence and love, e.g. Ps 119:

      Behold, I long for your precepts;
      in your righteousness give me life!...
      And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
      For my hope is in your ordinances.
      I will keep your law continually, for ever and ever,
      And I shall walk at liberty,
      for I have sought your precepts…
      Oh, how I love your law!
      It is my meditation all the day…
      How sweet are your words to my taste,
      Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
      Through your precepts I get understanding;
      Therefore I hate every false way…
      Your testimonies are my heritage forever,
      Yes, they are the joy of my heart…

      God’s nature is the source and explanation of order in all creation, as order is merely "the good" expressed in terms of relations of individual natures to their ends. It is impossible for the good of creation not to be ordered in a hierarchy, and "law" simply expresses that order.

      The "common good" also covers a lot of territory, but the most critical point here is that it consists in several distinct goods that comprise essential parts of it. Justice is not the entirety of the common good, but it is a fundamental and essential part of it; St. Thomas says "the order of justice is the order of the universe." It's not that justice serves some other good as a means to the common good, it is ITSELF the good, as one aspect of it. It would be impossible to have perfect charity toward all without also intending justice reign.

      In this current world, immigration laws are necessary, not just optional, for the common good, at least in order to state an upper limit to immigrant flow to a level that can be absorbed each year: without such a limit, the inflow would so damage the common good that it would undermine the very reason why they want to come, destroy the very good they seek by coming. In some other set of conditions such a constraint would not be necessary; in these conditions it is necessary. Under those facts, upholding the rule of law as to immigration is part of justice and the common good.

      Most human laws are subject to exceptions because they do not touch directly and comprehensively upon the common good as such. Immigration law itself reflects that there can be exceptions to the general rules for quotas and orderly entry: the law itself makes special rules for special cases, e.g. asylum seekers. So, for immigrants to flout even those special rules is for them to assert “I am an exception to the exceptions, I am especially special, even the exception rules don’t apply to me.” Notionally, there might even be some few instances where that claim might be plausible, but the idea that it could even in theory apply to millions is patently absurd: the whole reason we need LAWS to handle the millions is that at that scale the common good entails rightly categorizing the millions by types and setting rules for them by those types. It’s not possible that millions can’t be delineated by wholesome rules that fit them, where each one must be decided individually by the legislature.

      Delete
    2. TonyFebruary 23, 2025 at 12:52 PM

      If a law is not enforced, is it still a law? If a law is not just not enforced but actively undermined by its own government, is it still a law?

      Fair question: St. Thomas does say that a law that is not enforced is no longer a law. He explains this through the principles of law, though, not just by asserting it. A law is an expression of the will of the authority, i.e. the one who has the power to assert law. When that power changes its mind and no longer intends that people follow X rule, and so stops enforcing it, then X ceases to be the intention of the authority. Iif a legislator finds the people assigned to enforce the law aren’t doing so according to the legislator’s intention, he has the authority to address that failure by new measures. If he doesn’t, that signals a probable change in intention, but by not explicitly stating this, he leaves the conclusion as only probable: there might be other reasons he has not addressed the failure.

      The application of this principle is VERY difficult. Our (federal) authority is divided into 3 branches: no one branch on its own constitutes “the will of Authority”. But the Constitution expresses a kind of preeminence to the legislative part of the federal gov. in making it the first of the branches, and this conforms with St. Thomas’s expression in referring the the authority primarily under the name “legislator”. The legislator sets forth rules by which it intends to prescribe and promote action for the common good, whereas the executor’s role is to carry out those rules, not to make them. In the order of action, intention comes before the will’s command to do something, intention has more the character of law than execution.

      In our system, it takes many years for the government to respond to most problems. After a law is passed, the executive branch agencies take many months to implement it in detail according to their lights, then courts take several years to hear claims of disputants as to whether the agencies correctly interpreted the law, and after that if the result is not to Congress’s liking, it takes more years to run up a new bill that fixes it. Hence it is not only not reasonable, it is positively ridiculous to expect that the period of one single term of a president (the executor of laws) is sufficient time to demonstrate that lack of enforcement of a law means that “the authority” as a whole, (especially, the legislature), no longer intends that rule. It would take 3 terms to even begin to demonstrate this, preferably more, and under different parties also.

      The presumption is always in favor of the written law. This is because law itself, even apart from the specific, narrow goals it has, participates in the more general and comprehensive goods that fall under the umbrella of “the common good”. A person’s righteousness resides not only in his following the laws individually as they apply in concrete cases, it also resides in a constant, stable attitude of conformance to law, nay, even love of the law as it relates to eternal law. This stable readiness to conform is a HABIT, which is the essence of the virtues. Human custom represents customary behavior that (when the custom is wholesome) helps the citizens form righteous bearing regarding individual aspects of life. Law is a written participation in that relationship of custom and virtue: conformity with wholesome laws enhances the growth of the virtues, and the virtues (especially the theological virtues) are the substance of holiness. Thus the phrase “rule of law” doesn’t merely represent a necessary feature of a decent civil society, it represents an interior pattern of holy righteousness pointed toward heaven. Which is expressed in the Psalms.

      Delete
  12. NormFebruary 18, 2025 at 10:36 AM

    I just heard that the Trump administration is going about ways to implement the IVF promises.

    I don't know how people keep calling him the "Most Pro-life President", he might just be about to unleash one of the most devastating policies for the unborn.

    I think we need Prof Feser's pre election intensity back! If you could do an interview like this against the IVF mandate, it would be great Prof

    You are the only traditionalist catholic intellectual whose is not afraid to take on MAGA despite their often despicable attacks. Other catholic intellectuals like Chad Pecknold seem to be only cheerleading the adminstration.

    God Bless You and Keep You Safe Prof.

    You are in my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormFebruary 22, 2025 at 10:42 AM

      Hey Prof

      I was wondering, what's with so many catholic intellectuals cheering on JD Vance's recent comments on Christianity.

      Especially in light of the IVF scandal.

      No, conservative Catholic would retweet Biden even if he said something they agreed with precisely because they knew he was very wayward on more fundamental issues.

      JD Vance name is on this current IVF push.

      It's hard to take his comments on Christianity seriously.

      I genuinely ask, is there something that we ordinary folks don't know that someone like Patrick Deneen knows about JD Vance ?

      I will admit he is really articulate, smart and an effective communicator.

      If not for the IVF thing and the Gaza proposal, I would be really touting him because it's not everyday that you find a catholic of his calibre on such a powerful position.

      But I need him to come about on those issues and that can happen only with pressure.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 23, 2025 at 1:19 PM

      @Norm: The Conservative Movement is motivated by the goal of preserving the social customs that existed when its members came of age (so the 1970s through the early 2010s depending on the conservative in question). Within the Conservative Movement, there are some Catholics, Protestants, and Jews motivated by moral philosophy, natural law, religious tradition, scripture, etc. But the movement on the whole is a big tent coalition, and the least common denominator within the coalition is the knee-jerk preservation of social custom, not any principled, rigorous, internally consistent philosophy. I have a relative in his 30s who is an atheist, fine with abortion, fine with gay marriage, fine with divorce, slept around when he was younger, cohabitated with his gf, but absolutely refuses to even entertain voting for a Democrat over trans issues. This is because trans acceptance wasn't socially acceptable when he came of age (the 00s). This is the kind of voter the GOP relies on. If they moved further to the right on social issues, the GOP would risk loosing these voters (Matthew Walther calls these "Barstool Conservatives").

      Delete
    3. NLRFebruary 23, 2025 at 5:39 PM

      "The Conservative Movement is motivated by the goal of preserving the social customs that existed when its members came of age (so the 1970s through the early 2010s depending on the conservative in question"

      That's a good point. The thing is that, in general, political views in the modern era, pretty much from WWII on up aren't based on fixed values. They're based on relative values, values in relation to what other people believe.

      But that's not the norm, historically. From prehistoric times on up, people believed in fixed values. Not everyone had the same values of course. Nonetheless, that's something we need to get back to. Believing in what's right because it's right, not because it's the majority.

      Before we can even have a discussion, we have to clear the ground and make sure we're clear on what are the fundamental issues.

      Delete
    4. TonyFebruary 24, 2025 at 4:27 PM

      "The Conservative Movement is motivated by the goal of preserving the social customs that existed when its members came of age (so the 1970s through the early 2010s depending on the conservative in question"

      Good grief! The early 20th century standard of the conservative ideas was voiced by people like G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis, though it wasn't voiced to propose a specifically "conservative" political force; William H Taft did that. The "Conservative Manifesto" was published in 1937 by 2 conservative senators. In the middle of the century along came Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, William F. Buckley Jr, and especially Richard Weaver, who gave a principled exposition of it, all of these long before the 1970s. But there were conservatives before the 20th century, and before the 19th (Edmund Burke), and before Liberalism. Learn some history!.

      but absolutely refuses to even entertain voting for a Democrat over trans issues. This is because trans acceptance wasn't socially acceptable when he came of age (the 00s). This is the kind of voter the GOP relies on.

      Don't confuse "conservative" with the GOP: there is significant overlap, but they aren't the same, not by a long shot. The fact of the matter is that people who haven't investigated their own leanings down to their roots often have a broad intuition about a truth, but are unable to apply it reliably and across hard-to-solve problems. Conservatism properly relies on principles, not on mere tastes and sentiments. But those principles help explain and support some customs; this makes people assume that the preference to retain those customs is based on mere taste. It isn't so. My comment of 12:52 yesterday explains how custom (when not degenerate of itself) is an aid and support to the virtues; this implies that a wholesome society will intend to take measures to retain most customs, and change them only at need and only slowly. This in principle serves the common good.

      Many people have an indistinct, general sense of this truth, without being able to articulate it from its principles: they are not very good conservatives, but they are also not wrong in recognizing that customs are worth working to keep. Especially if they are ignorant of history, they will be unaware of how recently created behaviors are quite recent, and mistakenly grant them "customary" status when they don't deserve it; and will sometimes refuse to recognize positively pernicious customs as being such, mistakenly demanding their permanent retention merely because they are customs. These mistakes don't undermine conservatism as such, they are merely mistaken applications of it.

      Delete
    5. NormFebruary 26, 2025 at 12:30 PM

      I would like to add this gem of a quote from Prof Feser on twitter

      https://x.com/FeserEdward/status/1811899693720568068?t=TXQpP76uZ5HrkDKO8APqJA&s=19

      "Soft-pedaling the best part of Reagan-era conservatism (commitment to protecting the unborn) while aping the worst part (a fixation on economics, what JP2 called "economism") is not a promising program for postliberalism, even if the economism is populist rather than libertarian."

      I think more conservatives should be criticising Elon Musk for his lifestyle and use of IVF, his impregnating of multiple woman etc. This should be the main issue that has to be resolved.

      Instead people on the right seem to be fixated on criticising his crusade against the bureaucracy.

      I think there are legitimate criticisms ofcourse but we need to come back to social issues.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)