Maverick Philosopher

John Kerry on the First Amendment and 'Disinformation'

Unbelievable. And you say we are not in a war?

More proof that the Republic is hanging by a thread: Megyn Kelly on Kamala Harris.

UPDATE 9/30

It's war for sure. Sasha Stone. Elon Musk. Victor Davis Hanson. Matt Taibi.

Which side are you on?

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Late September and Fare Thee Wells

Rod Stewart, Maggie May. "Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It's late September and I really should be back at school."

Carole King, It Might as Well Rain Until September

The 'sixties forever! We were young, raw, open, impressionable, experience-hungry; we lived intensely and sometimes foolishly.  We felt deeply, and suffered deeply. Youth has its truth. And our popular music put to shame much of the stuff that came before and after. Or so we thought. Would I want to live though the 'sixties again? Hell no, I am having too good a time enjoying it memorially at a safe distance.  Youth has its truth, but if you can make it into old age with health and intellect intact, and a modicum of the lean green, you are winning the game. 

Django Reinhardt, September Song

Walter Huston, September Song 

Marcus Mumford and Oscar Isaac, Fare Thee Well

Mumford and the boys cover Dylan's "Farewell."  Fabulous. Let it play on.

The Miracles, What's So Good about Good-Bye?

Woody Guthrie, So Long it's been Good to Know You

Peter, Paul, and Mary, Leaving on a Jet Plane

Kimball on Kolakowski on Marxism as a Bogus Form of Religion

I have argued time and again that Marxism is not a religion. But many have a burning need so to misunderstand it. What the great Kolakowski says below reinforces me in the correctness of my opinion.  As for Fredric Jameson, whom Roger Kimball discusses in his Guilt of the Intellectuals, I haven't read him and never will. Theodor Adorno, on the other hand, I have read with care.  I rate him higher than Roger Kimball does, who is more of a public intellectual (a very good one!) than a philosopher. (PhilPapers lists only seven works of his.) I consider Adorno worth reading and evaluating, as I do in Contra Adorno: A Preliminary Plea for Omphaloscopy.

Kimball:

Whatever Professor Jameson’s personal commitment to Marxist doctrine, there can be little doubt that his habits of thought were deeply tinged by the gnostic contempt for everyday experience and faith in a secular apocalypse that has characterized Marxism from the beginning. As the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted in the third volume of his magisterial study Main Currents of Marxism, this is the ultimate source of Marxism’s Utopian dreams and its great seductiveness for suitably disposed intellectuals. “The influence that Marxism has achieved,” Kolakowski wrote,

far from being the result or proof of its scientific character, is almost entirely due to its prophetic, fantastic, and irrational elements. Marxism is a doctrine of blind confidence that a paradise of universal satisfaction is awaiting us just around the corner. Almost all the prophecies of Marx and his followers have already proved to be false, but this does not disturb the spiritual certainty of the faithful, any more than it did in the case of chiliastic sects. … In this sense Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporal eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be.

That the Marxist apocalypse is declared to be the inevitable result of inscrutable “scientific” laws only means that its partisans are potentially as dangerous as they are mystifying: the revolutionary is one whose possession of “the truth” is impervious to experience. For him, “History” speaks with a voice beyond contradiction or appeal.

By the way, 'magisterial' is exactly the word to describe Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. It is the work of a master, a magister. But would it have killed Kimball to provide a page reference? If he had, the editors would probably have deleted it.  Why do you think that is?

Just over the Transom from Malcolm Pollack

Hi Bill,

 

My neighbor didn't call me a Trumper to my face, but mentioned (back in April) to my wife that he had the impression that I was one. (I felt obliged to unpack the assertion in a post.)

 

The Cape has a lot of Dems, but most of the working people out here are what Zman calls "dirt people" (i.e., those who encounter actually existing reality in their work), and they are . . . well, Trumpers. They are also well-armed.

 

[. . .]

 

The post to which Malcolm links, from April,  is up to his usual high standard and is one you ought to read.  I agree with it in its entirety. As the political temperature rises, its relevance does as well. 

Religion and Anthropomorphism . . .

. . . with an oblique reference to Mormonism.

Substack latest.

Edward Feser, Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature

I want to thank Ed Feser for sending me a copy of his latest contribution to Thomistic Studies.  

Immortal Souls provides as ambitious and complete a defense of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical anthropology as is currently in print. Among the many topics covered are the reality and unity of the self, the immateriality of the intellect, the freedom of the will, the immortality of the soul, the critique of artificial intelligence, and the refutation of both Cartesian and materialist conceptions of human nature. Along the way, the main rival positions in contemporary philosophy and science are thoroughly engaged with and rebutted.

Like all of Feser's books, Immortal Souls is a model of expository clarity and analytic precision informed by an extensive knowledge of the contemporary literature.  You may order a copy of this (physically and intellectually) weighty tome from Amazon for a mere 31 USD.  

A non-technical effort of mine saw the light in August, Life's Path: Some Trail Notes. 

In this collection of aphorisms, observations, maxims, and mini-essays, a professional philosopher quits the ivory tower and hits the road of life. Here are some of his trail notes. They offer guidance and insight in a non-dogmatic spirit while encouraging in the reader the development of a critical attitude. While philosophical, these writings focus on the existential and practical aspects of philosophy rather than on the technical or theoretical. This is not academic discourse but life-philosophy with an edge that cuts against the grain of our contemporary decadence.

Topics include happiness and ambition, youth and old age, body and soul, love and lust, money and its uses, manners and morals, and the last things.

The price is right: $2.99 for Kindle, $20 for paperback, $28 for hardbound.  I have mailed six free copies to friends and I have four more free copies to distribute locally to Kid Nemesis, Biker Mike, Medico, and The Great Navigator when our paths next cross.  So if you are one of these characters, don't buy it. There's a copy with your name on it.

Political Enemies and Political Tactics

I had an interesting exchange with Dr. Caiati about political tactics in the comment thread to Haitians, Cats, and Red Herrings. Here are some further thoughts.

When our political enemies use our virtues against us, we should use their vices against them. Call it the Converse Alinskyite Tactic (CAT).

I used to say to them: Lie about us, and we will tell the truth about you. Now I say: Lie about us and we'll lie about you.  Along the same lines, and given that Kamalism Will Destroy America, as it surely will, Tom Klingenstein writes:

In wartime, as Churchill famously observed, “truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” We are told, by Republicans almost as frequently as by Democrats, that Trump lost the recent debate. But even if this were true, to say so merely gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Like Trump, we must stand up and proclaim victory. Assert it: He won. These are wartime rules. The other side already plays by such rules. We do not. 

Likewise, we fight Kamalism with facts and arguments, but today these are no more effective than using a straw to penetrate the shell of tortoise, as Lincoln  put it. For example, our best historians, liberals and conservatives, thoroughly debunked the 1619 project, the official history of Kamalism. But to what avail? War is not a battle of facts. 

The point here is that we conservatives will always lose so long as we fail to grasp that our political opponents are enemies who see politics as warfare.  If that is the way they see it, and it is, then that is the way we must see it.  Taking the high ground does no good. You might think that taking the high ground would shame our enemies and inspire them to play fair and speak the truth. But this ignores the fact that our opponents are enemies who are out to win by any means. They cannot be shamed.  

See my Politics as Polemics: The Converse Clausewitz Principle. I quote David Horowitz, a former leftist, who understands how these people operate.

I also refer you to recent posts by Malcolm Pollack who draws upon Carl Schmitt.

It is time to gird our loins and enter the fray. The fate of the Republic hangs in the balance.

See also: Rod Dreher: Floating Above the Fray as Usual. In the last couple of years, however, Dreher has 'evolved' somewhat.

Books or Eternal Life?

A quick Substack poke at Camus.

Central Bank Digital Currency

It is already upon us. Fifty Shades of Central Bank Tyranny.

In this article, I will define what a Central Bank Digital Currency is by exploring its major categories. I’ll demonstrate that the US already operates with a form of CBDC, albeit without the flashy labels. I will also show that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) can introduce more dystopian elements into this system—such as programming restrictions on when, how, and where you can spend your money without requiring Congressional approval.

However, the fear of central bank control over your transactions is, in fact, a red herring. The real threat lies with our government, which has already perfected the art of surveillance. Adding programmability is just the next logical step. Ultimately, both Republicans and Democrats are steering us toward the same destination: total digital control. They may use different words and different propaganda, but their goals converge. While we can’t simply vote out of this predicament, we can opt out entirely.

Am I a Religious Pluralist?

This from Tom O:

I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify your views on religious pluralism. Are you a pluralist of some kind? That is, do you believe no single religion or religious tradition can lay exclusive claim to the truth regarding the Divine, salvation, the soul, etc.? If so, could you please elaborate?

I'll make a start. It's a long story.

My belief, tentatively but not dogmatically held, is that no single institutionalized religion or church, such as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), can justifiably claim to be the only way to salvation such that baptism into this church, and continuing good-faith membership in it, are necessary conditions of attaining salvation.  Holding this, I hold that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are not barred from salvation.  So in this weak sense I am a religious pluralist.* The Roman Catholics cannot justifiably claim that extra ecclesiam salus non est ("There is no salvation outside the church") applies only to their church, even if it is the case that good-faith membership in some Christian church or other is necessary for salvation.  And the same goes for Protestants of any denomination and the Eastern Orthodox of any stripe.

A more interesting question arises when we consider John 14, and in particular, John 14:6:

⁶ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (KJV)

This implies, first, that to be saved is to "come unto [God] the Father," to be received by him, accepted by him, and in some sense or other come to share in his life for all eternity, and second, that there is only one way to come unto the Father, and share in his life (vita), and that is via Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who is both a particular man, and God the Son, and as such the truth (veritas) or Word or revelation of God.  Via, veritas, vita. A bit later in John 14 the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Trinity, makes his appearance as the "Comforter." 

John 14 gives us normative Christianity in a nutshell, including Trinity and Incarnation, and provides partial answers to the questions, What is salvation? and How do we attain it?  

I expect to be asked:  "Assuming that this is what salvation is, do you hold that there is only one way to it, the way of accepting Jesus as God and by keeping his commandments? Or are there other ways?"

My tentative answer is that, yes, there is only one way, but this is so only on the normative Christian conception of salvation. For on this conception, to be saved is to participate in the life of the triune God, the Second Person of which lived on Earth as a particular man, in a particular place, and shared fully in the miseries of our earthly sojourn. So if you accept normative Christianity, there is only one way to salvation.

My point is that whether there is only one way to the ultimate religious goal, salvation, depends on what salvation is, and there are different conceptions thereof.  These will have to be examined.

I'll leave it here for now, and if Tom or anyone wants to pursue this topic and its many ramifications, I'm game.

_____________________________________

*Two questions that naturally arise, and that cannot be engaged in any detail at the moment are: What is religion? and What is salvation?  For present purposes we may assume that Christianity is a clear example of a religion, and that, within Christianity, salvation is participation in the divine life.

Hillary Fuming

The sad cow is one poor loser. Interviewed by Maddow in under four minutes.  The political equivalent of a stool sample. Sad, as the Orange Man would say.

Why Would Cheney Endorse Harris?

A plausible explanation.

Here is their plan. Under two minutes. Endorsed by Elon Musk.  Not their plan, mind you, but the video exposé thereof. Watch it!

Gold Will Surge Should Kamala Win

So buy more now to cushion the shock later, should disaster strike.

Gold to $10K/oz under Harris admin.

Update (9/22). Spot is now $2621/oz as of 12:10 NY time. Kamala or no Kamala it will most likely trend upwards.

"When we have gold we are in fear; when we have none we are in danger." An English proverb the pertinence of which is proven by recent developments.

There's a Moon Out Tonight

I caught a preview this morning at 5:15 from the mountain bike.  A great caffeine-fueled ride from 5:15-6:43.  It's cooling down in the Zone. Wore a shirt for a change. The strenuous life is best by test. It doesn't matter how old you are. Get out there and bust your hump for an hour or two every day. Brother Jackass will be glad you did. He'll be exploding with energy afterwards. 

Supermoon tonight. 

Theme music. 

I first heard this when I was ten. This morning's moonset set it off one more once in the old man's head. "Without music, life would be a mistake." (Nietzsche). And it doesn't matter whether it's an old doo-wop number or The Ride of the Valkyries.

You may remember it from Apocalypse Now.

It might even be Mary Had a Little Lamb.

The Road to One-Party Rule

Here is the Democrat plan clearly explained in a few words.

The Man in the Mirror and Belief De Se

The following can happen.  You see yourself but without self-recognition.  You see yourself, but not as yourself.  Suppose you walk into a room which, unbeknownst to you, has a mirror covering the far wall.  You are slightly alarmed to see a wild-haired man with his fly open approaching you.  You are looking at yourself but you don't know it.  (The lighting is bad, you've had a few drinks . . . .) You think to yourself

1) That man's fly is open!

but not

2)  My fly is open!

Now these thoughts or propositions are different.  For one thing, they have different behavioral consequences.  I can believe the first without taking action with respect to my fly, or any fly.  But if I believe the second I will most assuredly button my fly.  A second point is that one cannot validly infer (2) from (1). That is because (2) says more than (1). For (2) says that BV's fly is open AND that I am BV.  When I refer to myself using 'BV' I refer to myself in the third person using an abbreviation (or a name) that both I and others can use. When I refer to myself using 'I,' I refer to myself in the first person using a word that only I can use to refer to myself.

So  (1) and (2) are different propositions.  I can believe the first without believing the second.  But how can this be given the plain fact that 'that man' and 'BV' refer to the same man?  The demonstrative phrase and the proper name have the same referent. Both propositions predicate the same property of the same subject.  So what makes them different propositions?

If propositions are Russellian, then BV, all 170 lbs of him, is a constituent of both propositions, which implies that these propositions are one and the same. But the propositions are distinct as has already be shown. So they must be Fregean.  BV himself cannot be a constituent of such a proposition: he needs a surrogate entity, a Fregean sense, to stand in for him in the proposition and to represent him.  (Note that this sense is both a representative of BV and a representation of BV.)  

As noted, (2) analyzes into a conjunction of 

3) BV's fly is open

and

4) I am BV.

Here is the point at which I am flummoxed and reach an impasse.  (4) says more than

5) BV is BV.

(5) is a miserable tautology. It is a logical truth, true in virtue of its logical form. Its negation is a contradiction. (4) is in some sense 'informative,' 'synthetic.' It smacks of a certain 'contingency': might I not have inhabited a numerically different body? Might not my epistemic access to the world have been mediated by a different body and brain?  

(5) differs in cognitive value (Erkenntniswert) from (4). But I am at a loss to say what this I-sense is. It has to be a sense, an abstract item of sorts, but what is it? What is the sense of this sense?  It appears utterly ineffable. The sense of 'I' when deployed by BV is unique to him: it somehow captures his ipseity and haecceity which are of course 'incommunicable,' as a scholastic might say, to anyone else.  

How eff the ineffable?  Hegel: there is no ineffable to eff. Tractarian Wittgenstein: Es gibt allerdings das Unaussprechliche. 'There is, however, the inexpressible."

Are the Souls of Brutes Subsistent?

Aquinas says No but his argument is inconclusive.

Substack latest.

Reader Zacary writes,

I am just a layman who likes studying Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, and recently I haven’t been studying the issue of animals in the afterlife. I stumbled across your post from many, many years ago (all the way back in 2009!) that was about the unity of consciousness argument and the subsistence of animal souls. 

Thank you for writing, Zacary.  That post from 2009 left a lot to be desired, so I rewrote it almost completely and published the result over at Substack. I have no time now to respond  to the rest of what you wrote, but if you read the Substack entry and have questions or objections I will try to answer them here.

Friday the 13th Cat Blogging!

In the foothills of the Superstition Mountains! Friday cat blogging is an ancient and  venerable tradition in the blogosphere. We pioneers of the 'sphere aim to keep it going. To hell with all you change-for-the-sake-of change 'progressives.'

I Ain't Superstitious, leastways no more than Howlin' Wolf, but two twin black tuxedo cats just crossed my path.  All dressed up with nowhere to go.  Nine lives and dressed to the nines. 

Stevie Ray Vaughan, Superstition.  Guitar solo starts at 3:03. 

And of course you've heard the story about Niels Bohr and the horseshoe over the door:

A friend was visiting in the home of Nobel Prize winner Niels Bohr, the famous atomic scientist.

As they were talking, the friend kept glancing at a horseshoe hanging over the door. Finally, unable to contain his curiosity any longer, he demanded:

“Niels, it can’t possibly be that you, a brilliant scientist, believe that foolish horseshoe superstition! ? !”

“Of course not,” replied the scientist. “But I understand it’s lucky whether you believe in it or not.”

Haitians, Cats, and Red Herrings

Do Haitians eat cats?

I don't know and I don't care. I do care that the Biden-Harris administration is violating the Constitution, undermining the rule of law, and destroying the country by importing illegal aliens. That's the issue. Whether Haitians chow down on what we consider pets is not the issue, but a distraction from it. It is an example of what is called a red herring.

Paradoxically, however, the current explosion of cat-memes,  far from distracting us from the relevant issue, is drawing attention to it, namely the invasion of illegals, which is not only permitted, but promoted by Biden-Harris.  This invasion will of course continue under a Harris-Walz administration, despite Kamala's brazen lies to the contrary. 

Here is Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, Jr. on the issue.

My tone above is polite, but for some time now I've been wondering whether we really should be polite to our political enemies.  Do any of you have an opinion on the question you would be willing to share? 

Finally, I don't really want to believe that Haitians eat cats, but then again, where are all the cats in Port-au-Prince?

9/11: 23 Years Later

Substack latest

22 Claims in Trump-Harris Debate Fact-Checked

Here

.............................

So are the Haitians who are enriching the culture of Springfield, Ohio, chowing down on cats and dogs and ducks? The deplorables of Springfield need to understand that diversity is our strength and that people have a right to live anywhere the global elites send them and the right to do whatever they want when they get there.  Ohio is fly-over country. People who live there are rubes and know-nothings.  The people who live there are poor white trash who need all the cultural enrichment they can get.  They need to understand that automotive diversity is as important as every other kind. Running red lights and stop signs is an alternative automotive lifestyle. It is racist and xenophobic to be judgmental. Anyone who makes moral judgments is judgmental, by definition!

More cat-memes, all in good Alinskyite fun. Think of it this way. Truth is not a leftist value.  So in our war against them we ought to honor their value system by using it against them.

Diversity = Cultural Enrichment

California, Colorado, and now Ohio. As a former resident of Ohio, this got my attention:

Welcome to Springfield, Ohio. It’s a nice town of about 60,000 that the administration decided needed about 20,000 Haitians – flown in directly from Haiti, mind you. Injecting this wonderful diversity from arguably the worst place on the planet into a nice little Midwestern town has had the predictable effect. Remember all those swans and ducks that used to swim in the park? They’re gone. The Haitians ate them. They’ve also eaten pet cats and dogs. Yeah, they’re eating peoples’ pets, slaughtering and butchering them, and turning them into lunch. I guess the cash they’re getting from all of us for the privilege of being here illegally isn’t enough – they have to chow down on Fido. Naturally, the American citizens of Springfield are disgusted by this, as well as the other crime and pathological behavior they’re seeing. What does the government say? “Shut up, racists. Also, you’re probably transphobes.”

The Geezer's Paradox

Étienne Gilson on the Jewish Philosophers He Knew

Étienne Gilson (1884-1978) writing in 1962 about his experiences as a student at the Sorbonne circa 1900:

. . . instead of resorting to philosophy for a better understanding of their religious faith, as Christian philosophers do, the Jews I have known have used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion. Christians philosophize to  identify themselves more intimately with their Christianity; our masters philosophized in order to run away from the synagogue. The illustrious example of Spinoza is a typical instance of what I mean. After the Theologico-Political Treatise, written as a farewell to the Law, its commands and it rites, came the Ethica, whose purpose was to create a mental universe in which reason was liberated from all contact with any religious revelation, Jewish or Christian. It would seem that the philosophical conversion of such children of Israel consists in turning their backs on their religion. (The Philosopher and Theology, Cluny Media, 2020, p. 6)

Gilson is of course speaking of his experiences with his teachers at the Sorbonne circa 1900. What he says, however, suggests a follow-up question I am not competent to answer.

Consider Jews of all times and places who (i) became professional philosophers and who (ii) were brought up in Judaism and who (iii) have used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion.  Is their number greater than the number of cradle Christians who became professional philosophers and then used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion?  My guess is the answer is in the affirmative.  If so, why?

We can ask a parallel question about Muslims. 

A Classicist Misanthrope Opens a Bar . . .

. . . and names it: Margaritas Ante Porcos.

Trump Derangement Syndrome: A Textbook Case

Liz Cheney's Endorsement of Kamala Harris.  Under nine minutes. Transcript provided. This well-fed matron embodies TDS to a T.  For a 'conservative' to endorse Harris-Walz is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you will permit me a bit of wit, what we have here is RINO-ectomy.

UPDATE 9/8/24

To compound the lunacy of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, quisling Dick has joined quisling Liz:

The two most prominent Bushies who have taken their ball and gone home in a fit of pique are Dick Cheney and his backstabbing daughter Liz. 

Dick and Liz have thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, which isn't a surprise to anybody. Like all of the Never Trump lunatics, they're trying justify their turncoat ways by saying that they are voting for a commie to save the country and the Republican Party. There's no way to spin that illogical garbage to make any sense, of course. Kamala Harris is a threat to the Constitution and a host of freedoms that we currently enjoy.

Athens and Jerusalem, Disagreement and Dogmatism: The Case of Gilson

Elliot in a comment from an earlier thread  writes,

 . . . I mentioned negligence about the truth. Something similar seems to be the case regarding reasons and arguments. Folks might be interested in them (and even in weak ones) if they support a belief already held. But the same folks might turn away from good arguments in disgust if those arguments undermine their beliefs.

What’s happening here? Confirmation bias? Something like Sartrean bad faith or Heideggerian inauthenticity? Pauline suppression of the truth? (Romans 1:18) Intellectual laziness? Doxastic rigidity? Indifference to intellectual virtue?

Something else?

Elliot is here touching upon a problem that not only fascinates me intellectually, but vexes me existentially. It is the old problem of Athens and Jerusalem: given their tension, does one have final authority over the other, and if so, which?   Must philosophy be assigned a merely ancillary status? Is philosophy the handmaiden of theology (philosophia ancilla theologiae)? Must philosophy listen and submit when (revelation-based) theology speaks? Or must the putative revelations of a religion satisfy the exigencies of autonomous reason in order to be credible (worthy of belief) in the first place? Many moderns would argue that Trinity and Incarnation, for example, flout  norms of rationality, or even worse, norms of morality, and for one or the other or both of these reasons, ought not be accepted.  

Etienne Gilson comes down on the Hierosolymitan side:

When the mind of a Christian begins to take an interest in metaphysics, the faith of his childhood has already provided him with the true answers to most of these questions. He still may well wonder how they are true, but he knows that they are true. As to the how, Christian philosophers investigate it when they they look for a rational justification of all the revealed truths accessible to the natural light of understanding. Only, when they set to work, the game is already over. [. . .] In any case, speaking for myself, I have never conceived the possibility of a split conscience divided between faith and philosophy. The Creed of the catechism of Paris has held all the key positions that have dominated, since early childhood, my interpretation of the world. What I believed then, I still believe. And without in any way confusing it with my faith, whose essence must be kept pure, I know that the philosophy I have today is wholly encompassed within the sphere of my religious belief. (The Philosopher and Theology, Cluny Media, 2020, p. 5, bolding added, italics in original)

I have bolded the main points. Gilson holds that the faith he uncritically imbibed as a child is true. But he does not merely believe it is true, he knows that it is true. Knowledge, however, entails objective certainty, not mere subjective certitude. So we may justly attribute to Gilson the claim that he is objectively certain that the main traditional Catholic tenets are true, and that therefore  it is impossible that he be mistaken about them.

And so the game is over before it begins. Which game? The very serious 'game' of rational examination, of critical evaluation, the Socratic 'game.' ("The unexamined life is not worth living.")  And so for Gilson there is simply no genuine problem of faith versus reason, no serious question whether reason has any legitimate role to play in the evaluation of the putative truths of revelation.  From the point of view of an arch-dogmatist such as Gilson, there is nothing 'putative' about them.  They are objectively, absolutely, certain such that:

Whatever philosophy may have to say will come later, and since it will not be permitted to add anything to the articles of faith, any more than to curtail them, [i. e., subtract anything from them] it can well be said that in the order of saving truth philosophy will come, not only late, but too late. (p. 4, italics added)

I hope we can agree that what a true philosopher, a serious philosopher, is after is the "saving truth," although what salvation is, and what it involves, are matters of controversy, whether one is operating within the ambit of philosophy or of theology.  Don't make the mistake of supposing that salvation is solely the concern of religionists. After all, Plato, Plotinus, and Spinoza, to mention just these three, were all concerned with  a truth that saves.

Gilson is asserting that he and others like him who were brought up at a certain time, in a certain place, in a particular version of Christianity, the traditional Roman Catholic version, possess for all eternity the saving truth, a truth that stands fast and is known (with objective certainty) to stand fast, regardless of what any other religion (including a competing version of  Christianity) or wisdom tradition has to say.  He is also asserting that philosophy can neither add anything to nor subtract anything from the substance of the salvific truth that Gilson and others like him firmly possess. And so philosophy's role can only be ancillary, preambulatory (as in, e.g., the preambulum fidei of Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica), expository, and clarifying, but never critical or evaluative.  That is to say, on Gilson's conception (which of course is not just his) philosophy will not be permitted (see quotation immediately above) to have veto power, i.e., power to reject any tenet of the depositum fidei as codified and transmitted by the one, true, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic  church.

To cap it all off, Gilson reports that he himself is psychologically incapable of admitting even the possibility of a "split conscience," or perhaps 'split consciousness,' that is, a conscience/consciousness that is "divided between faith and philosophy" and is thus pulled in opposite directions, the one Athenian, the other Hierosolymitan. 

This confession of incapacity shows that Gilson has no personal, existential grasp of the problem of faith versus reason. To understand the problem, one must live the tension between the autonomy of reason and the heteronomy of obedient faith. One cannot appreciate the problem without feeling that tension; Gilson fails to feel the tension; he therefore has no existential appreciation of the problem.

To take the tension seriously and existentially, one must appreciate the legitimacy of the claims made by the two 'cities.' One cannot simply dismiss one or the other of them.  The 'Four Horsemen'  of the now passé New Atheism, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, two of whom are now dead,* dismissed the claims of Jerusalem; Gilson dismisses the claims of Athens, unless Athens is willing to accept a subaltern status at once ancillary, preambulatory, expository, and clarifying.  I trust the reader understands that Gilson is not taking a Tertullian tack: he is not saying that the two cities have nothing to do with one another. They have something to do with one another, all right, in the way that a handmaiden and her mistress have something to do with one another. For a Thomist such as Gilson, revelation supplements reason without contradicting it; equally, however, revelation is under no obligation to satisfy the exigencies of reason: it needn't be rationally acceptable to be true.

For example, Trinity and Incarnation are truths whether or not reason can make sense of them or explain how they could be true. These items of revelation are true despite their apparently contradictory status. If reason can explain how they could be true, fine and dandy; if reason cannot explain how they could be true, no matter: they remain true nonetheless as truths beyond our ken as mysteries. What is paradoxical for us need not be contradictory in itself. Reason in us has no veto power over revelational disclosures.

Insofar as Gilson dismisses Athens and its claims, he privileges his own position, and finds nothing either rationally  or morally unacceptable in his doing so. Thus the diametrical disagreement of others equally intelligent, equally well-informed, and in equal possession of the moral and intellectual virtues, does not give him pause: it does not appear to him to be a good reason to question the supposed truth he was brought up to believe.  

I find this privileging of one's position to be a dubious affair.  Surely my position cannot be privileged just because it is mine. After all, my opponent who we are assuming is my epistemic peer, can do the same: he can privilege his position and announce that disagreement with him gives him no good reason to question his position.  Suppose our positions are diametrically opposed: each logically excludes the other. If he is justified in privileging his position just because it is his, and I am justified in privileging my position just because it is mine, then we are both justified in privileging our respective positions, and I have no more reason to accept mine than he has to accept his. I would have just as good a reason to accept his as he would have to accept mine. Logically, we would be in the same boat.

I conclude that a person cannot justify his privileging of his position simply because it is his.  What then justifies such privileging? Gilson might just announce that his position is justified because it is true and it is true regardless of who holds it.  But then how does he know that? He says: philosophy has no veto power over the deliverances of any divine revelation. His opponent says: Philosophy does have veto power over the deliverances of divine revelations that either are or entail logical contradictions. These proposition are contradictory: only one of them can be true.  Which?  Gilson cannot reasonably maintain that he knows that what he was brought up to believe is true because he was brought up to believe it.

Contra Gilson, my view is that, if you and I are epistemic peers, then your disagreement with me gives me good reason to question and doubt the position I take.  So, by my lights, Gilson has no rational right to make the claims he makes in the passages quoted. He ought not dogmatically claim that his view is absolutely true; he ought to admit that he has freely decided to accept as true the doctrine that he was brought up to believe and live in accordance with it. That is what intellectual honesty demands.

Getting back to Elliot, and in agreement with him, I agree that a good (bad) argument cannot be defined as one that leads to a conclusion that one is antecedently inclined to accept (reject).  That is no way to evaluate arguments! So why do so may people proceed that way?  I agree with all of Elliot's explanations for different cases.

_________________

*Philosophy department graffiti: "God is dead." -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead." -- God 

As for the tension between faith and reason (philosophy), I am reminded of a famous passage from Goethe's Faust:

Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust,
die eine will sich von der andern trennen:
Die eine hält in derber Liebeslust
sich an die Welt mit klammernden Organen;
die andre hebt gewaltsam sich vom Dust
zu den Gefilden hoher Ahnen.

        Faust 1, Vers 1112 - 1117; Vor dem Tor. 

https://www.gutzitiert.de/zitat_autor_johann_wolfgang_von_goethe_thema_seele_zitat_18635.html

 

In Keeping with the Joyous Kamala Vibe . . .

. . . this old tune by the Beach Boys captures the sum and 'substance' of her campaign. Come Tuesday night, the surly scowls of the racist Trump will have no chance against Kamalita's vibrations and excitations.

And Kamala Baby would never, ever, bomb Iran.

'Broken' and Other Examples of First-Grade English

Stack topper.

Is the Enlightenment the Problem?

Considerations contra

Top o' the Stack

To Stop Mass School Shootings: End Gun-Free Zones

Massad Ayoob

Putin Joins Liz Cheney and David French in Endorsing Kamala

Given what he's about, Putin's support for the silly goose makes perfect sense; given what she's supposed to be about, Cheney's make no sense at all but accords perfectly with her terminal TDS.

The Trumpianly deranged are a strange bunch.  The syndrome is not easy to understand. The pathology is on display in these articles:

Nicholas Kristoff, Why We Shouldn't Demean Trump Voters

Matt Bai responds to Kristoff.

An Impediment to Meditation

Substack latest.

U. S. Treasuries Still a Safe Haven?

Argument contra. Excerpt:

Even though the U.S. government’s debt-fueled spending response began as a national emergency under former President Trump, excessive spending continued under the Biden-Harris administration. It continued long after the emergency faded and continues today.

By continuing it, the Biden-Harris administration squandered the opportunity to refill the U.S. government’s credit reservoir to restore its risk-free status. They could have reduced spending to sustainable levels after the pandemic ended, but instead, they failed this basic test of fiscal responsibility.

The national debt in relation to the U.S. economy has now reached levels not seen since the end of World War 2. It may be helpful to consider how politicians of that time tackled this challenge. After the war, they adjusted their spending habits and stopped investing money in a war that had already ended. This decision ensured that the U.S. government’s credit reservoir would be replenished for future generations.

It’s a history lesson that today’s politicians either never learned or have chosen to ignore. Because they haven’t heeded the lesson, debt issued by the U.S. government has become riskier to the nation’s creditors. Because it has become riskier for those who lend money to the U.S. government, that same debt has become much more costly to U.S. taxpayers.

“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” It’s only a question of when and how painful it will be when it does.

Here we have yet another reason why anyone who supports Harris-Walz is a contemptible fool.  Is it not one of the marks of the fool to be unaware of, or unconcerned with, one's long-term best self-interest, where such self-interest correlates closely with the long-term best self-interest of one's country? 

Meanwhile the spot price of gold hovers around 2500 USD/oz.  That says something, doesn't it?

"How I Joined the Resistance"

J. D. Vance on becoming Catholic.  I wonder if David French has read this.

Equity and Criminality

Equity embraced, criminality furthered.

It's true. How might one argue for it? 

Son of 'in case you missed it'

Down with a bad case of TDS? Check with your doctor to see if Independence is right for you.

An Argument for the Preservation of the Latin Rite

Étienne Gilson, writing in 1962:

Latin is the language of the Church. The sorry degradation of the liturgical texts by their translation into a gradually deteriorating vernacular emphasizes the need for the preservation of a sacred language whose very immutability protects them from the decay of taste. (The Philosopher and Theology, Cluny Media, 2020, p. 6)

Now why hadn't that argument occurred to me? It is so plainly cogent, and more apropos now than it was at the beginning of Vatican II.

'Thanks' to the internet, the degeneration of the various vernaculars is accelerating.  Attempts to hold the line are rear-guard actions in the main. There is need of a dead language to offset the liturgy's slide into the morass of leftist cultural crapola.

Death renders  immutable what was.

Vehicles

I knew a man who knew all about his truck, its engine displacement, gear ratios, you name it. But when I asked him about his blood pressure, he replied that the doctor said it was OK. I thought to myself: Ken needs to get his vehicular priorities straight lest the via dolorosa through this vale of soul-making be more dolorous than it needs to be. 

Dark Moods

Like dark thoughts, dark moods are more or less oppressive depending on the hospitality with which we entertain them.

In case you missed it . . .

. . . here is the Kennedy clan's black  sheep's Arizona Trump endorsement. 

More on 'Baron' Corvo

A. J. A. Symon's Quest for Corvo (1934) has me in its grip. It is an intriguing exercise  in literary pathography whose subject is an English eccentric of the first magnitude. I'm on p. 222. Today I came across a high-class literary site, The Yellow Nineties, whereat I read this entry about our man.

Thanks again to Hector C. for referring me to this oddball.

I've got a whole category on oddballs. (68 entries and counting)