tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6341557553226888647..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Perfect world disorder (sans paywall)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84486623020300877742022-10-28T08:08:10.638-07:002022-10-28T08:08:10.638-07:00In the social realm what about people like Hayek w...In the social realm what about people like Hayek where order emerges from the trillions of self directed individuals in voluntary action?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67426597198721657782022-10-15T07:37:55.756-07:002022-10-15T07:37:55.756-07:00Seems Plato's predictions are en route: https:...Seems Plato's predictions are en route: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/manhattan-candidate-for-congress-releases-sex-tape-to-promote-sex-positive-approach/3908635/Oktavian Zamoyskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17976343876406335849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72722668038398786212022-10-04T13:06:25.230-07:002022-10-04T13:06:25.230-07:00@Tony
I just saw this comment or I would have res...@Tony<br /><br />I just saw this comment or I would have responded sooner. There is some misunderstanding about the point that I am making. I did not make the assertion that their existence is necessary. That is true only of God. What I am referring to is what St. Augustine and St. Thomas would refer to as "natural necessity". St. Thomas held that properties are inextricably linked to natures. It is for this reason that you cannot have a triangle that has four sides. In the same way, you cannot have an angel that is not immortal. Given what they are (their essence), they must be immortal. To be an angel is to have this property. If you don't have this property, you are not an angel. Again, this is called natural necessity. Said differently, given that God wills something to be, it has certain properties by nature of what it is. It was only nominalism that denied this.<br /><br />Now, reading more of your post, you deny the point that I am making and in doing so you are out of company with those who affirm the existence of natural necessity. It was the nominalist, voluntarist emphasis on the will of God as "all powerful" that eliminated natural necessity because nominalism did not hold that things have natures (in the realist sense) to anchor such necessity. Another way of stating the realist position is to say that God wills an angel to be immortal precisely by willing it to be an angel. This does not in any way undermine God's preservation of the being of angels. In one act of the Divine Will, He both wills them to be angels and eternally wills for their unending existence. To say that God could choose for the angel to not exist is to say that He could contradict His own will which is absurd. Again, by willing them to be angels, He wills them to be immortal.Michael Copashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09861476745241388399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50853851213093004842022-09-29T10:26:34.887-07:002022-09-29T10:26:34.887-07:00Like for example as you travel more to the east of...Like for example as you travel more to the east of the world in Asia, and even some parts of Europe, you'll find that Catholics are very hostile towards Protestants even more then they are to people of other faiths, not in the violent sense but in the firm kind of unwavering some sense.<br /><br />In many of these areas, the people have a very strong devotion to Mother Mary, so strong that whenever any Protestant comes trotting along to try and convert them, they immediately shut the door on them, not even giving them a chance to speak cause they don't want to hear a thing against Mother Mary, now attitudes like this aren't enforced by the state or church rather they have a very social basis or foundation enforced by the community.<br /><br />And they are effective at preserving the existence of those traditions and values even though harsh.<br /><br />Catholics in some of these areas are particularly harsher towards Protestants because the catholics tend to be small communities and the existence of all these ever breeding protestant sects breaks or acts against the Christian Unity which ought to be present and Christianity is Catholicism, period. I think notions like this can be strongly enforced at the cultural and social level by parents, families, communities, churches such that even if it is permitted that people of other faiths propagate their faith, the catholic will never for a moment consider leaving even if you are intellectually not able to defend the faith as well as some one else or even if you aren't really intellectually inclined as a person, you will never leave the faith.<br /><br />The average poor farmer who is a devout catholic and devoted to Mary, the Saints etc may not get all the intellectual nitty gritties but he will never ever abandon the faith because that's how he was brought up and cultured, in such away that no matter what befalls you be it doubt or misfortune, you never ever abandon the faith. And that's what he teaches his Children. That's the way it should be. If someone from another faith is able to convert you, it's your fault, not really the fault of the person trying to convert.<br /><br />So if you cultivate strong values, the faith will get preserved and eventually even grow.<br /><br />After observing the Eastern situation one does get the feeling that in the USA catholics and protestants share too much of a friendly bond. They seem to have adopted some sort of political idealism, that all they need to do is get like-minded people and they will be able to effect political change in such a way that all their demands are met. But I think that this idealism is misplaced, it seems like a certain section of the public may always be in favour of unjust practices like abortion and the like, the most that one can do is to mitigate by reducing the limit to a 14 week ban etc but it seems like barring some sensible thinkers, lots of integralists try to use situations like this to justify their position and not compromise, chasing after some idealistic Catholic state that just isn't feasible. They don't realise their refusal to compromise is what is leading to even greater negative effects.<br /><br />I think it's time some of these protestant catholic *political* alliances are broken by emphasising the differences and Catholicism at the family level strengthened. Social Justice shouldn't take precedence over the religious realities.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69274428160483326022022-09-29T10:25:50.829-07:002022-09-29T10:25:50.829-07:00Hi Tony
What you say makes a lot of sense but I h...Hi Tony<br /><br />What you say makes a lot of sense but I have trouble considering scenarios like for example, what if preachers of other faiths present their teachings before catholic authorities so that they may convert the people of that area, they would definitely be rejected all the time.<br /><br />If an authority of another place with a different faith ultimately is unconvinced and rejects the catholic missionaries proposal, it seems that he would be within his rights to prevent the conversions and preaching of missionaries to the people.<br /><br />Instead of all the complications might it not be better if the state was relatively neutral and just affirmed a generic sort of theism thereby leaving the battle for the dominating faith to the most well organised group who spreads their tradition and culture and values and faith on to their offsprings in the most effective way such that they are first able to have an inner kind of unity which in turn allows them to expand or convince others to join their faith, it seems like everyone has a fair chance in this situation.<br /><br />Being well organised and firm on a social level doesnt require the force of the state , just effective social practices and attitudes.<br /><br />Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20501434803828325522022-09-26T08:26:13.327-07:002022-09-26T08:26:13.327-07:00@Infinite_Growth
"(Eccl. 7:20)"
It'...@Infinite_Growth<br /><br />"(Eccl. 7:20)"<br /><br />It's Eccl. 7:10<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85531391396157959592022-09-25T20:20:20.890-07:002022-09-25T20:20:20.890-07:00Not sure why people romanticize early modern times...Not sure why people romanticize early modern times and medieval times. Was there ever a saint from those two periods who wrote in his/her journal "Hmm... people nowadays are just, upstanding, and kind to each other"?<br /><br />"Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." (Eccl. 7:20)<br /><br />People were never good.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3205256794894963712022-09-25T10:49:25.539-07:002022-09-25T10:49:25.539-07:00Like for example, what if a country with buddhist ...<i>Like for example, what if a country with buddhist majority decided to take certain steps to promote and preserve their faith and culture by banning catholic missionaries from preaching and bringing people to the faith.<br /><br />That wouldn't be right yes, What if the relevant authorities were to cite a catholic integralist country where other faiths were banned from preaching as justification ( a hypothetical ofcourse).</i> <br /><br />I have no problem with a Buddhist country enacting laws that prevent Catholic missionaries from preaching a different (i.e. Catholic) faith <i>in ways that are unjust</i>. I would argue that this merely means that, at the same time, the laws must allow for Catholic preaching of a new (to the Buddhists) religion in ways that ARE just, i.e. that give <b>due</b> deference to the just requirements of the virtues of truth. <br /><br />For example, a new religion, if it is to be allowed to be even <i>considered</i> (by any of the Buddhists) as a possible replacement for Buddhism, must be able to provide bona fides that <i>justify</i> a Buddhist taking seriously "maybe my religion is importantly incomplete regarding religious truth, let's hear more". Because Catholic missionaries have always relied on the possibility of God <b>providing just such testimonies for the bona fides of Catholicism</b> that justly require (to those with openness to the truth) a reconsideration of long-held positions - i.e. miracles, and heroic holiness of life. These two kinds of testimony licitly provide due reason, in ANY wholesomely lawful society without Catholicism, a rational basis to permit at least a discussion and comparison of their traditional religion and Catholicism. And, in actual historical fact, <i>God has not stinted</i> in providing these kinds of witness to His Church as to its divine origin. These principles are quite explicitly laid out in Vatican II's document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. <br /><br />As a result, it is possible to consider, as just, laws that first require Catholic missionaries to first present themselves to the king (or other authority), and to be subject to examination and interrogation by the king's religious experts, before being allowed to preach to others. And in fact Catholic missionaries have sometimes done EXACTLY THAT. What is impossible is that a country would <i>justly</i> have laws that utterly and completely forbid <i>anyone</i> to even entertain a missionary's request to propose to them new religious claims. That sort of law would be opposed to the virtues of truth, which require of men to be <i>open</i> to truth proposed on just grounds (i.e. grounds compatible with the demands of reason). (A comparable principle requires of ALL men that they <i>seek</i> to know God as much as they might be able, and therefore make of it an intellectual and moral failing to live one's life wholly without reference to <i>even considering</i> whether there is a higher good to which we have some relation. Which is also stated in DH.) Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46658878690415059662022-09-25T10:25:12.363-07:002022-09-25T10:25:12.363-07:00@ UncommonDescent,
"Among all the purposeles...@ UncommonDescent,<br /><br />"Among all the purposeless bags of chemicals in this purposeless Universe, you're not just the most sensible, intelligent and handsome, but also the most moral! An epiphenomenal high five!"<br /><br />Stop it! I think I'm going to bust a gut!<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29234423177552477132022-09-24T12:49:46.856-07:002022-09-24T12:49:46.856-07:00@ Papalinton:
Among all the purposeless bags of c...@ Papalinton:<br /><br />Among all the purposeless bags of chemicals in this purposeless Universe, you're not just the most sensible, intelligent and handsome, but also the most moral! An epiphenomenal high five!UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46209468193967669962022-09-24T05:34:55.768-07:002022-09-24T05:34:55.768-07:00It's a funny gaggle around here but I enjoy it...It's a funny gaggle around here but I enjoy it all the same. I even have my imitators, as one can observe. Alternatively, the Baroque fellow is original without a doubt. Papalintonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88606558340719545242022-09-23T10:39:21.417-07:002022-09-23T10:39:21.417-07:00@ Papalinton,
"twaddle"
How do you mea...@ Papalinton,<br /><br />"twaddle"<br /><br />How do you measure how badly off religious conservatism is when your own revealed beliefs are the twaddle of arrogance grounded in self as your ultimate authority?<br /><br />What is especially funny is that you spend so much effort on this particular site, read by relatively few, when a person of your grand knowledge of things should be on a correspondingly much grander stage speaking to grand audiences ... but who has ever heard of Papalinton?<br /><br />Heh.<br /><br />It must be quite galling to you that you are held down by some force that you cannot understand even though it is known to you as twaddle.<br /><br />Here is a helpful suggestion for you. Bill yourself as a comedian and your audiences will become larger.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89352520717099136812022-09-23T00:06:55.040-07:002022-09-23T00:06:55.040-07:00Cervantes
If religious conservatism subscribes to ...Cervantes<br />If religious conservatism subscribes to such twaddle, it's worse off than I thought. Papalintonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7380316968919861322022-09-22T12:01:50.391-07:002022-09-22T12:01:50.391-07:00Just read the statement on pro life political prud...Just read the statement on pro life political prudence signed by many Prominent Pro Life scholars. It's a very well written, accessible and logically sound statement. I am very grateful for the witnesses of all those scholars with regards to this profound issue. May God bless them. Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59837684740279583512022-09-22T11:58:28.992-07:002022-09-22T11:58:28.992-07:00Hi Tony
You make lots of sound and interesting po...Hi Tony<br /><br />You make lots of sound and interesting points.<br /><br />It's a lot to parse through.<br /><br />If I am not wrong though, I think our disagreement lies with regards to the feasibility of a relatively neutral Government.<br /><br />I think such a government is somewhat possible.<br /><br />We could get into the intricacies of that.<br /><br />But before that I am interested in your views on states or countries with very substantial non catholic majorities.<br /><br />Like for example, what if a country with buddhist majority decided to take certain steps to promote and preserve their faith and culture by banning catholic missionaries from preaching and bringing people to the faith.<br /><br />That wouldn't be right yes, What if the relevant authorities were to cite a catholic integralist country where other faiths were banned from preaching as justification ( a hypothetical ofcourse).<br /><br />It seems to me that the only defence one might have to offer is that the Catholicism is the truth. <br /><br />Now while I live and cherish the truth of Catholicism with all my heart.<br /><br />It just seems obvious to me that another person from a different faith or people of different faiths may sincerely and whole heartedly hold their tenants to be true as well.<br /><br />It just doesn't seem right for a first Catholic missionary to inform the authorities of a state that they should allow missionaries to convert and at the same time accept that Catholic countries won't allow conversions in their regions<br />because Catholicism is the truth.<br /><br />While ofcourse it's the Truth, it also requires detailed argumentation and convincing for people to see that Truth. I would say most of the time it isn't even argumentation but just the experience of God's work through some profound life changing event which borders on being a miracle that ultimately causes people to convert, eg being cured, making up with your estranged family etc.<br /><br />One might argue that this truth isn't as obvious as other truths and requires a good degree of commitment. It also means that reasonable people might ultimately not come to see that Truth.<br /><br />Hence it makes sense for me for states to not be specifically religious especially in regards to matters of preaching and conversion, it should be neutral in that regard. It could still recognise God and affirm theism in general.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5845060090169200282022-09-22T10:11:46.215-07:002022-09-22T10:11:46.215-07:00Mild or not, I don't want any inquisition and ...Mild or not, I don't want any inquisition and that's one of the reasons I am glad I don't live in the USA.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60954074995497670592022-09-21T22:57:21.435-07:002022-09-21T22:57:21.435-07:00Walter, I can only agree. It's worth noting th...Walter, I can only agree. It's worth noting that the Inquisition, once it got settled down after the excesses of the wars of religion, was far milder than civil jurisdictions in either Catholic or Protestant countries. Its work in the Iberian world and Italy was principally concerned with moral faults. Even here, it was far more rational than other jurisdictions. There was the very unusual (for Spain) witch craze in Navarra in the late sixteenth century: 400 accused. The Inquisition found all cases apart from two groundless, and for those couple only prescribed penances and instruction.Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15004739491562709752022-09-21T22:51:21.828-07:002022-09-21T22:51:21.828-07:00Jack, Conservatism’s attitude towards religion def...Jack, Conservatism’s attitude towards religion defines it because the divinisation of civil society and relativisation of Christianity encompasses all its variations. Rather than get tied down with the less Christian types (Burke’s dubious and latitudinarian notions are of course, outshone by outright denial and, outrageously, REDEFINITION of dogma after dogma in authors like Scruton and Dostoevsky), we can cut to the chase and look at what Russell Kirk had to say. <br /><br />The great ideological divider between conservatism and the Christian worldview is original sin. For conservatism, civil society becomes religious society or Church (this has NOTHING to do with unity, or collaboration, of Church and State). The most “religious” conservatives are usually the worst ones because they describe civil society as “immortal” and personal in the proper sense – but the Church is the ONLY society to which such terms apply. <br /><br />Original sin is incompatible with a belief in God speaking through civil society. The divinisation of civil society by “religious” conservatives is their greatest departure from the religious worldview. Kirk saw a history of divine action through civil society in terms that divinised it. His talk of a “collective mind” does not even apply to the Church; this is just nineteenth century bogus philosophy: “How are we to know God’s mind and will? Through the prejudices and traditions which millenniums of human experience with divine means and judgements has implanted in the mind of the species”; “History is the gradual revelation of a supreme design… God makes history through the collective mind” (The Conservative mind). <br /><br />From a religious point of view this is astonishing. How can the “prejudices and traditions” of millennia, which are a mixture of falsehood and truth, be called God’s mind? These high sounding phrases only restate the blurring of nature and the divine of Classical thought. <br /><br />Those works you mention do not save Burke, or conservatism, from the charge of being naturalistic, evolutionist Enlightenment ideology, in its pure, counter-revolutionary form. The re-writers of history cannot change the fact that the Church never supported the principal thinkers of the Counter-Revolution; no more than it supported Italian Fascism, whatever the “services” it rendered the Vatican.<br />Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44615046923603723452022-09-21T13:33:50.825-07:002022-09-21T13:33:50.825-07:00@ Papalinton,
"Proselytizing, however is not...@ Papalinton,<br /><br />"Proselytizing, however is not a good look nor appreciated in the public square as it makes for discomforting relationships with the wider neighbourhood"<br /><br />Unless, of course, it is you doing the proselytizing, which are doing. That makes your statement hilarious.<br /><br />"It's in the numbers of numerous surveys throughout the past decades that Catholicism, as a creditable (let alone credible) framework around which today's diverse and multi-cultural<br />communities can coalesce, bind and organise, has reached its use-by date."<br /><br />"Surveys", huh? That's how you find Truth is it? And when the results of the surveys change, what happens to Truth? Sounds like you don't believe in it … except when you, grounded in self as you are, speak.<br /><br />What buffoonery!<br /><br />Thanks for the laughs.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />PS - I pray for your conversion to a state that allows you to use your mind for real and healing thought. You undoubtedly have the talent should you will yourself to use it properly instead of divisively.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26883811143993756972022-09-21T08:47:21.476-07:002022-09-21T08:47:21.476-07:00@ Papalinton:
Don't forget to iron your prie...@ Papalinton: <br /><br />Don't forget to iron your priest robes. The Church of Darwin deserves the best. UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50565086488130761512022-09-21T03:47:50.580-07:002022-09-21T03:47:50.580-07:00To: Norm, September 19, 2022 at 7:08 AM
You say, ...To: Norm, September 19, 2022 at 7:08 AM<br />You say, "Professor Feser's work and overall approach and commentary, to me atleast, exemplifies some of the most sophisticated philosophical treatments that one can find ..." I'm happy for you to have found something that makes some sense of meaning for you. But such a discovery is limited in application because it can only be defined within the context for which you were searching. In other words, it is largely sensible but only within a Catholic perspective, and is believed within a very limited audience. By far, the operant context at orders of magnitude so much greater, is that which is outside the Catholic framework. Catholic thought, catholic philosophy (Thomism), to be sure, is part of the mix but it is waning, particularly in the West over the past 100 years. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the ever-increasing and robust challenge and demand for Catholicism to prove its bona fides as the central social platform on which the West should be consolidated going forward. I am more that sure that that challenge has already been lost. It's in the numbers of numerous surveys throughout the past decades that Catholicism, as a creditable (let alone credible) framework around which today's diverse and multi-cultural <br />communities can coalesce, bind and organise, has reached its use-by date.<br /><br />We, as a community, must be mindful that Catholicism plays a bit part in today's world. That is not to say it has no role in contemporary society. But those that wish to live by the Catholic dictate are free to do so and are welcomed to do so, as least to me. Proselytising, however is not a good look nor appreciated in the public square as it makes for discomforting relationships with the wider neighbourhood.<br /><br />You say you are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. To suggest that they are normative moral beliefs based on embryology and sociology, is factually wrong. The scientific, sociological, anthropological, physiological, psychological and psychiatric research has clearly shown us that the male-female differentiation is fundamentally and significantly more nuanced than the somewhat risibly simplistic binary definition that seems to inform your notion of what constitutes a boy and what a girl. But I am heartened by your comment: "But obviously through the democratic process, if the majority of the people happen to disagree with me and vote accordingly, I will respect that outcome and perhaps adopt a more grass roots approach to change that out come through the democratic approach."<br />I say the jury is already out on these, and the community has collectively spoken, throughout the Western world least.<br /><br />No. You don't disappoint me. We have more in common than you think. But to me religiosity is an unnecessary burden to being a good, moral, ethical, decent and informed member of the community. Papalintonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9416362558416882582022-09-20T19:59:47.282-07:002022-09-20T19:59:47.282-07:00You're too harsh on conservatism (in which the...You're too harsh on conservatism (in which there are many different tendencies). How can it be associated with liberal secularism? Edmund Burke ably defended the importance of religion in society. Perhaps you should read The Political Reason of Edmund Burke (Francis Cavanan SJ), or Edmund Burke and the Natural Law (Stanlis). Jack Daviesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51757208246379098292022-09-20T18:44:55.833-07:002022-09-20T18:44:55.833-07:00Walter, we have been well-prepared by three hundre...<i>Walter, we have been well-prepared by three hundred years of conservative ascendancy since the triumph in the early eighteenth century of the society that would be defended by Burke and de Maistre.</i> <br /><br />Cervantes, could you, out of courtesy to present company (especially our host Dr. Feser), stop referring such bilge as the above as being accredited to "conservatives" simply, and use a more correct term, such as (to pick one among various options) "Burkean conservatives", or some other hyphenated-conservative slice that does not cover the entire gamut of conservatism? (And, critically, does not get at the essence of conservatism.) Because your tendentious comments about "conservatives" <b>always</b> focuses attention on bad ideas from <i>CERTAIN BRANCHES</i> of conservatives, but are not shared by other branches of conservatives and are not generic to conservatism as such. Conservatism includes some who reject exactly the errors you so deride. Henceforth, ongoing failure to <b><i>qualify</i></b> your comments in an appropriate way amounts to either straw man fallacies or simply boorish argumentation meant to score points rather than to elucidate truth. <br /><br />In point of fact, no version of Burkean or Maistrean theory has held primary social or political control in the West for 300 years, and in reality the degeneracies present in the western society that we have exist <i>far more</i> due to forces <i>opposed</i> to Burkean theory than forces closely allied with his philosophy. (And no, I am no Burkean - the above is not meant to <i>defend</i> his ideas.) Even granting the (arguable) thesis that Burke was a right-liberal while others were left-liberals, the left-liberals have been the ones with vastly more effective power than the right-liberals, in the West considered generally. It is ONLY by lumping Burke in with <i>all liberals</i> that one can consider anything even related to his theory to have triumphed over a 300 year period, but to then go on and attribute this to "conservatives" is to simply push the term "conservative" beyond any meaningful sense whatsoever, and then your comment becomes mere noise. <br /><br />You can use this to start learning appropriate distinctions: http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/04/is_this_conservatism.htmlTonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66596623324410034622022-09-20T18:15:47.744-07:002022-09-20T18:15:47.744-07:00And yet you can't see how you played tax colle...And yet you can't see how you played tax collector for them and their Event 201. martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15385743864852028137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89927156464554397882022-09-20T14:20:10.901-07:002022-09-20T14:20:10.901-07:00Another interesting piece which again forces us to...Another interesting piece which again forces us to confront, if we are willing and honest, the critical matter of "the anthropological question" as it relates to social and interpersonal moral claims.<br /><br />Progressives wish to avoid the question of the grounding of categorical obligations and duties: pretending that categories which they have abolished can still somehow produce claims structures. Whereas conservatives seem too terrified to face these critical questions at all: "What happens when we take the anti-teleological pronouncements of the organisms of the political left at face value as a potential predicate for dealing with them? How do we frame the "moral encounter" which results when we confront an organism which denies the existence of natural kinds, and therefore of kind-based shared aims and interests? What IS the appetite-manifesting-thing that confronts us in order to emit various sorts of noises which are apparently meant to impel us to adopt certain behaviors it desires? And finally, without a teleological framework, can anyone even speak of confronting a coherent being? <br /><br />We say the thing is a desiring-thing or that it expresses a will. But so what? From what ground does this will arise? Has it a unified cause? What is it about about "its" , or better "this" will - assuming that such a will is even subject to rational analysis - is supposed to compel respect or forbearance or even self-sacrificial consideration?<br /><br />In the final reduction, what we are left with, when viewing the progressive other through its own interpretive lens, is Feser's famous "congeries of appetites"<br /><br />That is a fact which most progressives explicitly or implicitly must acknowledge given their basic premisses, but one which they hope you will not notice.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is one which most conservatives are too terrified to even confront.<br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.com