tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8428460591863929715..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Aristotle watches Blade RunnerEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11162820919686171512015-06-29T04:53:05.169-07:002015-06-29T04:53:05.169-07:00Mr. West,
Yes, I intend to read Dr. Feser's w...Mr. West,<br /><br />Yes, I intend to read Dr. Feser's work. As for what I mean by computing, I suppose I ought to have been more broad and stuck to "Computer Science". What I'm interested in is avoiding common errors and fuzzy thinking in regards to the relationship between computers and minds. I think that scientism and computationalism are somewhat of an Anglo phenomenon along with "Analytic" philosophy in general, following on from men like Hume and Locke. I wonder to what extent the English language has influenced this. I think that the Greek term "nous", for example, which refers to the intuitive mind, may alone be an effective barrier against Anglo errors.Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15859778653427310512015-06-28T09:47:14.557-07:002015-06-28T09:47:14.557-07:00Jack,
I'm studying Computer Science at Univer...Jack,<br /><br /><i>I'm studying Computer Science at University. I know that this is perhaps not your area of expertise, but I've read some of your articles on this blog criticizing Computationalism. Do you know of any professors or text books in the field that take a view of Computing more amenable to Aristotelian metaphysics and less bogged down in scientistic reductionism?</i><br /><br />Hopefully Ed, or someone else with more expertise, replies. In the meantime, computationalism is a theory in philosophy of mind. So, if that's how you're using it, I suspect Dr. Feser would point you to his work on hylemorphic dualism.<br /><br />But I'm guessing you mean something else. Could you clarify what you mean by "Computing"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470664030455998305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56311909648994482182015-06-28T07:32:52.323-07:002015-06-28T07:32:52.323-07:00Dear Prof. Feser,
I'm studying Computer Scien...Dear Prof. Feser,<br /><br />I'm studying Computer Science at University. I know that this is perhaps not your area of expertise, but I've read some of your articles on this blog criticizing Computationalism. Do you know of any professors or text books in the field that take a view of Computing more amenable to Aristotelian metaphysics and less bogged down in scientistic reductionism?Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3013346955936755742015-06-11T21:25:18.473-07:002015-06-11T21:25:18.473-07:00machine,
The absence of any kind of substantial s...machine,<br /><br /><i>The absence of any kind of substantial spiritual dimension in life is already like breathing for the vast majority of people.</i><br /><br />See, I disagree. I think people are going absolutely nuts with the spiritual dimension and are 'interpreting' it in all kinds of crazy ways.<br /><br /><i>But except for the spiritual-like value of music, I see nothing but a thoroughly pervasive default atheism in the daily life of culture,</i><br /><br />I disagree. I think it's a thoroughly pervasive default subjectivism, which is ambiguous between broad irreligion, paganism and deism. There's always the talk about how people live as 'practical atheists', but I always regarded that as bunk - practical atheists wouldn't have much care for 'justice' and 'morality' and all that jazz, even if they were fundamentally misguided about all of the above.<br /><br />It's not that I think things are in great shape. If anything, I think they're in worse shape than you're saying. But you come across to me - and perhaps I misunderstand - as being convinced that a deep commitment to science, atheism, materialism, etc exists throughout the culture. I think it's a deep commitment to screaming irrationality, which tends to act out against Christianity in particular, but also acts out against 'scientists who wear the wrong shirt during a press conference' and more.<br /><br /><i>I'm working on the cognitive equivalent of some of their tactics, such as sending into the opposing camp paid prostitutes with full-blown aids.</i><br /><br />Well, I can appreciate that kind of talk - kudos for the vivid imagery.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75593954811801546182015-06-11T18:57:51.953-07:002015-06-11T18:57:51.953-07:00Crude
The absence of any kind of substantial spir...Crude<br /><br />The absence of any kind of substantial spiritual dimension in life is already like breathing for the vast majority of people.<br /><br />That factor alone, increasing rapidly year by year, is already erasing any felt need for God or even spirituality per se in just about any sense.<br /><br />The issues that are left? Science is seen to have taken care of many of those already---while replacing superstitions, many of which are associated with religion---and to them science is just as equally well on its way to providing immortality, and the digerati value a virtual ideal state as much as old-schoolers value an envisioned celestial city, especially if you can store versions and copies of yourself.<br /><br />But except for the spiritual-like value of music, I see nothing but a thoroughly pervasive default atheism in the daily life of culture, and it's not even being challenged to any appreciable or significant extent.<br /><br />And when contemporary humanity is sick, it wants a super-rationalistic medical scientist, with no (to them) hocus-pocus about God or spiritual matters.<br /><br />And I'm far from the only person who thinks theism is headed for zero if the modern mentalities (they are legion) are not effectively countered---and soon.<br /><br />But if 150 quality soldiers can disintegrate an army of over 40,000 conscienceless murdering thugs in Sierra Leone, . . . .<br /><br />I'm working on the cognitive equivalent of some of their tactics, such as sending into the opposing camp paid prostitutes with full-blown aids.<br /><br />But in the case of analytic philosophy, it looks like they have already hired some themselves.<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38731057230919396132015-06-11T17:11:14.685-07:002015-06-11T17:11:14.685-07:00Step2: So describing its tendency as a final cause...Step2: <i>So describing its tendency as a final cause is an insufficient description unless you assume a particular "normal" context, when it is better to map out the context first and then describe its movement. </i><br /><br />Nah, if it were better, then I would've said it. A sufficient description is one that fits the topic in the context being discussed, not one that clutters the issue with too much detail. A precise mathematical accounting would be suitable for studying relativistic physics, but it would be off-topic in this discussion about final causality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13014049801455520962015-06-11T12:30:28.061-07:002015-06-11T12:30:28.061-07:00Apparently I'm dealing with someone's obse...Apparently I'm dealing with someone's obsession for oversimplifying.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61200287640532652382015-06-10T13:07:50.724-07:002015-06-10T13:07:50.724-07:00So describing its tendency as a final cause is an ...<i>So describing its tendency as a final cause is an insufficient description unless you assume a particular "normal" context, when it is better to map out the context first</i><br /><br />Still dealing with final causes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40060311801347366742015-06-10T12:00:30.633-07:002015-06-10T12:00:30.633-07:00Indeed, we call it the rock's mass. Something ...<i>Indeed, we call it the rock's mass. Something that doesn't have mass would not fall at all, in any direction, so clearly it's wrong to say that it has "nothing" to do with the rock.</i><br /><br />It isn't wrong to say that mass is not unique to rocks, and its movement is far more precisely described by gravitational forces, friction, shape, etc. So describing its tendency as a final cause is an insufficient description unless you assume a particular "normal" context, when it is better to map out the context first and then describe its movement.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53257802155504280952015-06-10T07:42:29.937-07:002015-06-10T07:42:29.937-07:00One thing I want to make clear. When I talk about ...One thing I want to make clear. When I talk about the need for Christians to make comic books, video games - call it 'low media' if you want to get your snob on - it's not like I'm arguing there needs to be some kind of mass-market appeal, or worse, that you can measure your success by your profit margins. I've got little love for that kind of 'Christianity' or that kind of commercialism.<br /><br />I'm simply talking about bringing some amount of Christianity - heck, some amount of Thomism - into the creative sphere. And the 'creative sphere' covers quite a lot. It doesn't always require depth, and in fact serious depth is sometimes inappropriate. Not everyone is deep. Not everything needs to be deep.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68059199338365194882015-06-09T23:17:38.728-07:002015-06-09T23:17:38.728-07:00Timocrates,
Again I think some of the issues are ...Timocrates,<br /><br />Again I think some of the issues are about how we define the terms artist and commercial. You mention great poets like Shakespeare, but they are somewhat anomalous. In traditional society all craftsmen were artists (and we could probably include peasants and yeoman, who understood the skills to healthily bring forth the fruits of the soil, not to mention landscaping and other crafts) in one sense. There was neither a clear divide between artists and other workers, nor one between beauty and utility, as we see in the modern world. I worry that in concentrating on only great poets, and separating them from all other artists and craftsmen, as well as in neglecting use, we perpetuate this modern view of art.<br /><br />Art and crafts should have uses - the final and formal causes of work - and it is these that should inform the aesthetic quality of the work. Having such a use it is makes sense that the work will often be saleable, and there is nothing wrong with that in principle. It is also perfectly true that beauty should be a part of use, as this is implied in attention to the form of the work and creating for truly humane use. <br /><br />Of course, if one is talking about modern consumerism, this is entirely different. Billions of pounds are spent globally each year, just to try and sell things that people would probably not buy otherwise (hence it is requires marketing). In modern industrial and electronic society, use and aesthetics are separated to a huge degree, so we have mass produced, ugly junk, in which commercialism has destroyed both beauty and even thought at fully humane utility, and popular artistic notions that see use and utility as totally foreign to art.<br />Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48018705936723962002015-06-09T08:29:19.386-07:002015-06-09T08:29:19.386-07:00Timocrates,
Commercialism does not belong in art ...Timocrates,<br /><br /><i>Commercialism does not belong in art or philosophy, as every philosopher and artist knows. Art and philosophy are both apt to make men kings, and kings have no regard for merchants.</i><br /><br />I can't agree, and as near as I can tell, Aristotle wouldn't agree either. Most men aren't cut out to be kings. Or merchants. I think sights need to be set lower.<br /><br />As for commercialism - pursuing money above all else isn't the goal here, though some pursuit of money isn't the problem. But communicating to a broader audience, in terms they can either understand or absorb? That's something commercialism has had more success with.<br /><br />I'm entirely on board with there being a place, and an important one, for philosophy, higher intellectual pursuits and arguments. There's a place for that. But there's also a place for trying to reach the ignorant, the heretofore uninterested, and frankly, the stupid.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15867600081544213222015-06-09T06:33:47.404-07:002015-06-09T06:33:47.404-07:00It seems to me a false dichotomy[1]. Competition a...It seems to me a false dichotomy[1]. Competition and cooperation are not contraries. Competition presupposes cooperation (as Timocrates tacitly admits in his comment about rules). Conflict and cooperation are, perhaps, contraries.<br /><br />[1]The exception is the ecological senses of the words, where competition means something more like conflict, but that isn't the words' ordinary uses and becomes confusing when applied to humans.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470664030455998305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54907790713664717232015-06-09T05:23:44.142-07:002015-06-09T05:23:44.142-07:00Timocrates: Commercialism does not belong in art o...Timocrates: <i>Commercialism does not belong in art or philosophy, as every philosopher and artist knows. Art and philosophy are both apt to make men kings, and kings have no regard for merchants.</i><br /><br />A king who has no regard for his merchants is going to have trouble running his kingdom. Where commercialism doesn’t belong is hobbies; everyone’s got to make a living. Artists are really just a kind of craftsmen. I see Jeremy has already made this point — the modern view of the <i>artiste</i> is woefully puffed up with self-importance. What we need is not less commercialism in art, but less pride. We may think that Hollywood is in it for the money, but — OK, it’s in it for the money, yes, but decent films are generally more profitable than indecent ones. If moviemakers were only <i>more</i> concerned with profit, we’d get less filth. It’s a peculiar modern perversion that the artist’s job is to regurgitate his own inner feelings instead of presenting to us the goodness and truth that lie without. But that makes the artist less important than his message — he’s only a messenger boy, a craftsman whose skill is to find an efficient manner of delivering a statement by Someone Else.<br /><br /><i>... We don't need more video games and comic books.</i><br /><br />True, television and film are still the predominant media. We need more Thomistic sitcoms.<br /><br /><i>When is the last time you read something of lasting or enduring value when you knew or even sensed a profit motive beneath?</i><br /><br />In my experience, you can’t judge a book by the price on its cover. Which work of Mozart’s would you throw out because he was feeling the pinch when he composed it? Sure, the best artists are not motivated by profit. So are the best cobblers. Or rather we should say, “not <i>only</i> by profit”.<br /><br /><i>it is in fact cooperation that makes man achieve. Ask any platoon.</i><br /><br />Ah, but there wouldn’t be any platoon if there were no enemy to compete against. Life is a more mundane balance, a mix of contraries, than we often wish; extremes are so much more thrilling. One of the biggest problems with modern art is that it no longer suffers itself to be restricted in any way. What we really need is more discipline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69296402897671211752015-06-08T23:17:04.780-07:002015-06-08T23:17:04.780-07:00@ Jeremy Taylor,
Of course there is nothing wrong...@ Jeremy Taylor,<br /><br />Of course there is nothing wrong with it. My family is mercantile and they do it honourably. But corruption of philosophy and art (in everyday man's terms) will come from commercialism. It's a delicate balance, as I meant to say above.<br /><br />But let's be plain. When is the last time you read something of lasting or enduring value when you knew or even sensed a profit motive beneath? What is it that corrupts motives in people you have met, such that you acquired distrust or suspicion? We can all forgive men or women who are looking for a living; however, we all also hold sacrosanct certain bonds.<br /><br />The best artists are motivated not by profit but by - as cheasy as it sounds - love. Why did Dante write his epic work? It had to do with his own love of country. Shakespeare barely made anything.<br /><br />Commercial logic has its own proper sphere, and God help the country where merchants rule. Religions are disgraced by the same, as the influence of Venice during the Crusades.<br /><br />I have to stand by what I said earlier: philosophers need artists and artists need philosophers. Ultimately, philosophers also need theologians. Philosophers are never "fans" of artists, though artists deserve their fans. Philosophers make the theory, the artist makes the model and the fan follows. This is why being a philosopher in any society (no matter what name philosopher is changed to) is so important. Artists present a way of living in a human and practical sense; the philosopher teaches the artists what is worth living. Or if I am wrong, someone explain to me the influence of pop artists on mass culture.<br /><br />And no. Contrary to what might be popular in the USA today, commercialism and competition are vanities. They only work if the rules are fair, and they are not; further, it is in fact cooperation that makes man achieve. Ask any platoon.Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15771532357628788772015-06-08T22:43:49.107-07:002015-06-08T22:43:49.107-07:00That is, if one is talking about artists-craftsmen...That is, if one is talking about artists-craftsmen - producing things in exchange for money, I don't think there is anything wrong with this. The artist-craftsman has always produced things for patrons and customers in order to make his living, creating what is useful. Beauty was infused in what was useful in traditional societies. There was far less a split between them, as in modern society. In this sense I see nothing wrong with combining commerce and art.<br /><br />Of course, if you are referring to modern consumerism, then that is something different.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84603141555734629292015-06-08T22:35:30.616-07:002015-06-08T22:35:30.616-07:00Timocrates,
What do you mean by commercialism? An...Timocrates,<br /><br />What do you mean by commercialism? And what do you mean by artist?<br /><br />In traditional societies, there has generally been less of a divide between artists and craftsmen. The conception of the artist a select occupation, set apart from the rest of society, producing largely with beauty alone in mind, not use, is a early modern and modern one.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74531890146262602842015-06-08T21:45:07.010-07:002015-06-08T21:45:07.010-07:00@ Crude,
And, lastly, I would add this to the fin...@ Crude,<br /><br />And, lastly, I would add this to the final part I wrote above about philosophers being the best judges of art: artists truly do need criticism from philosophers; artists are the muses of philosophers in their humanity and philosophers are the muses of artists in their truth. They act like two necessary organs of a living, breathing body. The philosopher needs rest in the artist and the artist needs prompting and judgment from the philosopher. The artist wishes in his nature to be philosophy in practice most perfectly (most often, "beautifully"); the philosopher requires the humanity of the artist's internal conflict to drive him to more perfect - that is, human - application of his meaning and truth. The artist is brave in that he dares to apply the philosopher's theory; the philosopher is a friend insofar as he naturally critiques the artist in such a wise that the artist respects it and is emboldened and inspired to be more perfect.Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82891649604377853082015-06-08T21:19:26.862-07:002015-06-08T21:19:26.862-07:00@ Crude,
Commercialism does not belong in art or ...@ Crude,<br /><br />Commercialism does not belong in art or philosophy, as every philosopher and artist knows. Art and philosophy are both apt to make men kings, and kings have no regard for merchants.<br /><br />It's a temptation to every philosopher to allow money to become his end. But he knows better. So much better. His original vocation to philosophy was not out of love of money - I can think of no more moronic a soul who philosophizes, especially today, because he believes it profitable. Rather, I know the philosopher in career naturally has a kinship with the artist because he detects in them his own plight: a powerful desire to give without receiving and being content with the payment of love and thanks from all those who benefit, but of course troubled by the need for materialistic necessities. That is why both true philosophers and artists are naturally heroic and industrious: they truly cast their bread on the water. This is especially why we as a people and culture must treasure out philosophers and artists, even in their faults, errors and weaknesses. The fact that, e.g., artists expose themselves to public scrutiny is their innate generosity; and the fact that Wisdom wishes to pronounce herself on the rooftops, though destitute of reward, is why we at least owe them love and friendship.<br /><br />... We don't need more video games and comic books. Those who make them need more philosophers: philosophers are the best judges of art, naturally salvaging the babies from the dirty bath water.Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64256959398158505862015-06-08T18:45:11.992-07:002015-06-08T18:45:11.992-07:00Timocrates,
In some cases, I'm sure. In other...Timocrates,<br /><br />In some cases, I'm sure. In other cases? They react to other things. There's nothing wrong with a bit of commercialism either, for that matter.<br /><br />I worry in cases like these that people think that influencing through art requires exceptional skill and depth. Which, I think, ends up viewing the problem as 'We need to make more video games and comic books <i>for thomists</i>.'<br /><br />Enticing idea in one way, but again, maybe there's a larger audience out there that needs attention too.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24187886267367778152015-06-08T18:12:58.068-07:002015-06-08T18:12:58.068-07:00@ Crude,
Philosophy inspires art and challenges a...@ Crude,<br /><br />Philosophy inspires art and challenges artists to be true to their vocation. People who know artistic people know that they respond to the propositions of philosophy intensely. There is a reason Aristotle gave attention to poetry and theatre. Artistic people desperately need challenging from philosophy, otherwise they lose their original vocation and end up becoming slaves to commercialism. <br /><br />Thomism and philosophy generally stimulates artistic creativity, whether for or against. Both often make for good art, insofar as it goes. Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28934716555688491372015-06-08T15:38:12.492-07:002015-06-08T15:38:12.492-07:00machine,
Granted it's from 2010, but here'...machine,<br /><br /><i>Granted it's from 2010, but here's a blurb from it:</i><br /><br />As I said, I'm not doubting that young people are disengaged with Christianity. What I'm doubting is the following:<br /><br /><i>As the consensus corrodes, the Judeo-Christian consensus' effect on the conscience of youth about belief in God will wane rapidly, and then scepticism and atheism will become, as Nietzsche remarked---like breathing.</i><br /><br />Yeah? Seems like a load.<br /><br />I mean, don't get me wrong. I know that is, among certain Cultists of Gnu, a prominent pseudo-intellectual beat-off fantasy - but all evidence indicates that the culture is hurtling towards a variety of subjectivisms, skepticism of anything that isn't doctrinally mandatory (including, at times, skepticism itself), and more. Again, I'm not saying that this is some kind of good news for Christians - far from it. But it's bad news for just about everyone, atheism included. Again, just see the in-fighting among atheists - including literal <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/atheist-church-split_n_4550456.html" rel="nofollow">schisms</a>.<br /><br />That's why Barna talks about 'spiritually disengaged' people. It's not that they've become convinced that atheism is true and that materialism rules the land. It's that they simply don't give a shit, and don't pretend to besides. And for the ones that do give a shit, their atheism is often wrapped up with politics.<br /><br />Beyond that, really - the idea that the one thing propping up religious belief is 'Church money' itself strikes me as bizarre. As if the only thing standing between people and firm, convinced atheism is, what.. making sure Anglicans keep getting ample money flowing to them? In my view, their handling of that money, the way they've presented their own faith (and I'll count various Catholics in this equation as well) has been essential to that corrosion to begin with. If I wanted to make the greatest impact on the uneducated in favor of theism, it's a 50-50 split on whether it would be better to give money to the right churches, or out and out take it from the wrong ones.<br /><br />Anyway, all this isn't to say that it's unimportant to reach out to - let's be honest - uneducated people who can barely figure out basic analogies, much less grapple with formal/final causes and metaphysics. I think it's very important, and I know Thomists don't do that. But it's weird that people expect *Thomists* of all people to try and reach that audience. They're doing their own jobs quite well, as near as I can tell. Want to reach the slower people? Use your spare time to be entertaining, write some books and games and comics, and more.<br /><br />Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77339374712341729492015-06-08T13:14:45.092-07:002015-06-08T13:14:45.092-07:00Thank you, Timocrates
And news about life extensi...Thank you, Timocrates<br /><br />And news about life extension research, however false and whiz-bang to the realities---"Like, y'know, in just a few years genetics is going to eliminate death altogether!"---pads their minds' sublimation of death's imminence even more.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8100843688802419112015-06-08T12:54:15.505-07:002015-06-08T12:54:15.505-07:00Sorry, my above reply should actually have been ad...Sorry, my above reply should actually have been addressed to machinephilosophy!Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45462732656987921442015-06-08T12:52:50.483-07:002015-06-08T12:52:50.483-07:00@ Crude,
"As the consensus corrodes, the Jud...@ Crude,<br /><br />"<i>As the consensus corrodes, the Judeo-Christian consensus' effect on the conscience of youth about belief in God will wane rapidly, and then scepticism and atheism will become, as Nietzsche remarked---like breathing.</i>"<br /><br />Our modern society is especially good at this. The sheer volume of distractions especially young people are constantly bombarded with is already breath-taking. We are constantly bombarded with images and messages of death and violence and the fear it produces yet, notwithstanding, we are never moved into reflection about death, which would of course temper voyeurism and vanity and be conducive with philosophical searching or seeking. Now that's quite a thing, isn't it? Moderns see and hear of more death than any other people ever in history; yet simultaneously we are the least likely to actually think about the significance of the imminence of our own death! Indeed, much of our modern habits seem to be little more than desperate attempts to ensure we do not have to deal with those tough questions - and technology today provides seemingly endless possibilities to give passing enthrallment or distraction.<br /><br />But like the hyper-sexualization of culture that is already yielding a certain jadedness and an eventual total burn-out (we can expect soon the final debasement and trivialization of sex - i.e., nothing really fancy about it after all); likewise, this circus of distractions can also only result in its own burn out of the individuals involved. The over-stimulation of man's senses and base appetites can but only weaken him; and people, when weak, tend to react by false or desperate shows of strength or control. I think the attempt by radical progressives we are seeing today to acquire an increasingly universal and virtually totalitarian grip over society and culture via hijacking and dominating political and legal institutions is something of a proof of this already happening. But truly is it written that it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.Timocrateshttp://americamagazine.orgnoreply@blogger.com