11.24.2011
11.22.2011
11.20.2011
Revolution
The "occupy" movement is fed up. They don't like the way things are going these days, and they are camping in public places to make everyone aware of their feelings. But what's the movement about, ultimately? There's some class-envy stuff going on and some general sense that things are not fair. But the diagnosis - that "the system" is the reason things are so bad, is a dangerous one. It's all well and good to have a conversation about how awful things are. We absolutely need to think critically about the way we organize our lives together; this is what politics is about. However, critical thinking cannot be criticism alone. In order to avoid being dangerous it must also be constructive. What the occupy movement really needs to be successful is a plan! What would they do to fix our society? Is their a political solution? Do we take more money from rich people using the power of the government? Does that ultimately solve the problem? I think most occupy folks would say, no, that's not enough. They want to flush the toilet and start all over again. They want revolution - regime change. No more American way, which in their view has lead to a large power differential between the ruling class and the ruled. I'm not exactly sure there is a specific idea they have in mind. Like in 2008, these people want "change," and really any radical change will do. The open-endedness of it all makes us vulnerable to tyranny.
11.07.2011
Watching Europe Die
I find myself wondering what will actually happen? In America, anyways, it seems there are no consequences for anything. Caught in a lie? Deny it until everyone forgets. Make bad business choices? The government will bail you out. Spend too much money? Print some more! After all, truth is something we impose on the world.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
11.06.2011
Peter Lawler Expands Upon The Obvious
College is for technical education these days. It's not for liberal education, or education intended to free a person from the prejudices of the dominant culture.
So far we've concluded, following Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, that most of what we call higher education is really technical education. It's the acquisition of indispensable skills for people in a middle-class democracy. That technical education at our brick-and-mortar colleges typically includes some "liberal education," but that part of college education is getting smaller and somewhat vaguer or more perfunctory That's because we no longer know what the humanities are for, beyond sharpening basic skills in critical thinking, effective communication, and so forth. The sciences, as far as I can tell, are more confident and meritocratic than ever, the humanities more dazed and confused and so angry and suspicious of the 'logocentrism" of meritocracy.AND that's just too bad. But really, what else could we possibly expect? College is, as democrats believe, for everyone. And everyone is not meant for liberal education. So education becomes technical; education becomes that which gives persons the power to succeed and to have power over other persons, which is what democracy is reduced to in the perceived absence of God.
Tocqueville adds that identifying science with technology is basically a democratic prejudice We tend to value science as useful for generating the power required to make us more comfortable, secure, and free from material drudgery. But the truth is that there's also pure science or theoretical science, which can be distinguished even from experimental science. (The importance of this distinction is one reason among many I admire TV's The Big Bang Theory--with the intellectual superiority of the theoretical Sheldon to the experimental Leonard always being displayed, although Leonard is a nicer guy with more normal human emotions.)
11.02.2011
Questions for the Heretic
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and is God Himself?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ established a Church on this earth?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ appointed apostles to rule and teach his Church?
Do you believe that these apostles teach and rule with Jesus’s authority, and therefore God’s authority?
Do you believe that the Church Jesus Christ established is the Roman Catholic Church, and that this same Church has persisted throughout the ages in a continuous line of apostolic succession, starting with Peter and ending with Benedict XVI?
Do you believe the teachings of this Church in faith and morals? If no, why not?
Do you not believe the Church Jesus Christ established teaches with divine authority?
Does God lead us astray? Does God leave us without authoritative moral guidance?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ established a Church on this earth?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ appointed apostles to rule and teach his Church?
Do you believe that these apostles teach and rule with Jesus’s authority, and therefore God’s authority?
Do you believe that the Church Jesus Christ established is the Roman Catholic Church, and that this same Church has persisted throughout the ages in a continuous line of apostolic succession, starting with Peter and ending with Benedict XVI?
Do you believe the teachings of this Church in faith and morals? If no, why not?
Do you not believe the Church Jesus Christ established teaches with divine authority?
Does God lead us astray? Does God leave us without authoritative moral guidance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)