I like attacking the low hanging "Christian Nation" fruit. Perhaps it's a vice of mine. Still the error this author makes is so bad, I wanted to give him a chance to correct it before I exposed it. I emailed Joe Farah and the author in the morning, but the article is still there.
So here goes. Check it out.
82 comments:
Jon,
I think you did a good job.
I think the problem of understanding the First Amendment has become more dificult than in the Founder's era, because of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. And their emphasis on "personal experience", at the costs of the ritual and education.
These "movements" have separated institutional religion/religious tradition from their authorities. Emphasis on the Holy Spirit and personalism have undermined how the Founders appealed to "the common", as the "sacred". This is what is meant by "a moral and relgious people". The governmet was considered a means of "God's intervention" in the world.
"The sacred" now is viewed with such supernaturalism, that there is a hinderance in understanding the Founding generation's viewpoint of a "natural order", which was defined and protected society "under law".
Their understanding was taking the "moral order" for granted, as this was what was taught in thier cultural heritage and value system from their countries of origin, as well as the understanding of science in their day of cause and effect.
The Founders understood the value of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends, and worship within one's denomination, without the interference of government.
Today, though, there is disagreement about whether to frame the Constitution in a different way with the DoI as the "guiding light" to internationalism. Those that believe this way believe that human rights (equal under law) is a matter of affirming natural rights, and not just a matter of what the nation-state grants..
Those that affirm such convictions are those that "feel called to" or are interested in humanitarianism, via human rights activism, humanitarian aid, nation-building, and other endeavors of global service.
But, just because there are international needs and concerns, does not mean that our nation-state and its Constitutional government should be dissolved.
.
These guys who operate from their faith based beliefs fulfill a theory that ideology distorts communication. Implications become explicit in their minds and there's not a stinking thing ou can do about it.
.
ou would be you.
Not merely a mental typo: Pretty much the worst I've ever seen since the list of schoolkid responses that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
I don't think this should or can be turned into an indictment of the entire right of this country, Phil. That's what that other sewer of a blog does, and it's disingenuous.
But I will note that World Net Daily has zero quality control and cyberpublishes some of the dumbest shit on the internet.
And I also must note that ain't you a handsome guy, Mr. Johnson. Love the new pic.
Damn! That was bad.
.
I don't think this should or can be turned into an indictment of the entire right of this country, Phil
.
If you mean my comment about ideology and the distortion of communication, you'll have to talk to Jurgen Habermas about that.
.
Phil,
Glad to make your "physical" acquaintance! Nice pic!
Internationalism is the undoing of our Founder's vision of separated and divided powers. The principle of accountability cannot be compromised without compromising the nation. As without accountability, then the nation will be manipulated by the "highest bidder", which will breed corruption and undermine "equal justice under law".
Separated and divided power was to be true at the Federal level between the branches of government, between Church and State, and between the Feds and the States. Each arena had it own loci of control or "function".
Boundaries are good for societal health, otherwise, no one is able to discern where or what is appropriate. Boundaries are needed at the personal level, as well as the State and National level, otherwise, the personal ceases to have a right to life, which undermines the most basic foundation of liberty.
A lack of boundary is where there is no law. And such a lack of boundary can be the useful for undermining the nation's foundation and being, as well as creating an environment that is "open for business". Liberty, in this sense can be the 'undoing" or the inversion of the nation's ability to function and prosper and the citizen's right to be protected by his Constitutional priviledges.
Foreign lobbyists petition our government for certain priviledges. Is such a right to be granted to those not having a vested interest in our public or common good? but their own?
International trade is a 'good' but has greed compromised business interests in selling out our national security?
Liberty is of value to and for me, as I believe it was the primary driving force of our Revolution. But, when liberty is used to circumvent another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then our nation's foundational value and promise to provide justice for citizens and to promote "equality" under law, has been compromised.
What should we do, then?
.
What should we do, then?
.
Well, I think you make a certain point, Angie, about ideology and communication.
.
Your comments are quite conclusive and they leave no room for questions or alternative views.
.
That's a tough row to hoe.
.
Well, it is true that one's ideology can undermine liberty, as well...
But, it does seem that our Founders were wanting accountability in government, weren't they, as they did not want special privileges granted to the "State" or "the aristocrat" (those with connections)...
All I was seeking to affirm was the Founding principle of "the rule of law", as it concerns citizens and our national interests, as it concerns undermining our nation state...and the individual's right to choose his way of life....
That means, to me, that individual's are free to associate or not with their particular interests of value, which means, liberty of conscience....and others are also free to give information, address individuals with proposals, and pursue their own interests....
Phil,
Our Founders were ideological in their development of our nation state, weren't they? And these principles are principles that protect our nation's liberty for ALL of us...not just a select few. But, in doing so, there is paradox and tension. So, one must come to conclusions about their greatest values and where they will "lay their hat", so to speak...
I dont' believe that it is an elite's right to usurp the indivudual's right to pursue his own interests....unless it is granted by conscious assent....and to his own personal interests and value!
.
Our Founders were ideological in their development of our nation state, weren't they?
I'm sure some of them were, men like Patrick Henry and Benjamin Rush. But, others, men like Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were more involved in what has to be seen as a scientific approach on this new society. Why else would they have referred to it as an experiment?
.
"Joan of Arc was Noah's wife."
Ha ha.
.
Didn't you know that?
.
.
Well, Joe Farah certainly is exercising his liberty. If that's what you mean, Angie.
.
Phil,
Science is also an ideology, then, IF Jefferson, et al were using it ALONE to form the union and it was an experiement. Were they scientific materialists? I wouldn't think so...because the union was to be based on real lives that had value in and of themselves. This is the DoI.
But, our Constituion defines those liberties within a context, our nation/state, our State, and our local government/community. Individuals were to be free to pursue their own interests within these contexts and in doing so, would benefit their local, State and nation....this is the value of citizenship. But, citizenship within our governement doesn't define a citizen's life in a determing or confining ways.
Our Founders were ideological in their development of our nation state, weren't they? And these principles are principles that protect our nation's liberty for ALL of us...not just a select few. But, in doing so, there is paradox and tension. So, one must come to conclusions about their greatest values and where they will "lay their hat", so to speak...
Yes, I agree. But the founders were not of one ideological or religious bent. The founders were pragmatic compromisers and managed to forge a Union despite these differences. They trusted...hoped...that this spirit of Union would trump, or at least mitigate, individual interests (whether personal or state) and that a nation could rise and be maintained through pragmatic compromise toward a single goal. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
They gave us a framework and some words of wisdom and then turned the whole mess over to us. Since then nothing but tension, tension, and tension; but that's politics (in competition for earliest profession). You always see the same thing in civil government (local, state and federal), ecclesiastical governance, organizational governance, corporate governance, and all subsequent intertwining relationships.
When we rail against government we are railing against ourselves and our neighbors*.
And, through all this, liberties are/have always been in flux as moral/religious establishmentarians (borrowed from Davis Sehat) and a broader culture wrestle for control (while each of these broad constituencies are further divided between conservative and liberal with libertarian topping....oh yeah, anarchists too).
No one will ever completely get their way, that's the way the system's designed, and control will ebb and flow as everyone jockeys for position.
If only we could all agree on what liberty even means and who gets to lay claim to it.
For instance, in the mid-to late 19th century, the moral/religious establishment had for most intents and purposes locked up the role of moral arbiter in civic life, with even the courts deciding that a woman’s place was in the home attending to family by issuing opinions such as, “…the organization of the family, which was ‘founded in the divine ordinance,’ relegated women to the home as the proper sphere for their work” and “’This [coverture] is the law of the Creator” (Sehat’s Myth of American Religious Freedom**). But the moral/religious establishment was split on this between conservative and more liberal views, with the liberal moral/religious establishment teeming with secular organizations in supporting women’s suffrage and greater civil liberties.
While the women’s suffrage movement did not threaten to restrict the liberties of the conservative moral/religious establishment, whose institutions and members maintained all the rights and privileges of citizenship and enterprise, it did threaten to constrict their influence in terms of cultural control. The conservatives, like in today’s language of the cultural battles, decried a loss of their liberties while resisting the expansion of women’s liberties. I think that in large part, women’s suffrage was eventually successful in that the basic principles set forth at the founding were just too overpowering. We certainly see that in the general expansion of franchise privileges for blacks and religious minorities too (I’m including Catholics here too, who often sought court relief of discrimination by the dominant moral/religious establishment). And, we’re seeing the same thing play out today with the tensions between American homosexuals (citizens seeking recognition of equal civil liberties) and the conservative moral/religious establishment.
*(I am the sole representative of the Republic of Me and let me tell you, there is still tension and compromise.)
** In my opinion, an elegant expansion of the court opinion discussion expressed in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP (1947).
Oh yeah, that was embarrassing. Good job Jon.
jimmyraybob,
I think I agree with you, if an elite is an 'educated class', versus, and elite was an "empowered class", that circumvented "equal rights under law". That was the difference in our Founding generation, wasn't it?
Self-government was a value to our Founders, so a "Republic of Me" might hold some truth, but citizenship is/of a value as well.
While equality cannot be experienced without liberty of conscience, then, self-government is necessary to maintain the fraternity of the Union.
What this means to me, is that people in our society are free to go about their business without interference from intrusive invasion of their private life. It also means that one can choose public service as a vocation, but all citizens have a responsibility in their government to try to understand the issues and to make their voices heard, by participating in their government.
I might add that government was to be limited because we were to be self-governing, respecting another's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There was to be mutuality, not sacrifice, because each individual has a right to his personal commitments and interests.
Government was to arbitrate between parties regarding conflicts of interests. These usually had to do with overstepping a boundary or undermining the tension between the public and private arenas...
.
Science is also an ideology, then, IF Jefferson, et al were using it ALONE to form the union and it was an experiment.
.
Angie, you and I must show a little more respect for the more formally educated and honest others who blog and comment here at this site. And, we should not take umbrage when we are reproved for our ways.
Science is NOT and ideology. Scientism may be so; but, not science which is open to various forms of proof.
.
Phil,
The social sciences are not an exact science. And science is still learning about the "human being", even then, there must be a way to falsify findings that are regarded 'status quo'....such as the Harvard professor that just resigned due to his "Moral Psychology' findings...
Political science is not an exact science, either. While I respect education, there are many theories out there.
I was speaking of the whole context of the Founder's framing of our nation, our present state of understanding "the human" and political liberty, which was a value in itself to the Founders.
Scientism as an experimental theory into the "human" and social arenas, has been viewed as ethically abhorrent. Such experimentation has been used on the "disempowered class", with not remorse from those with elite mind-sets.
When regard for physical or natural sciences goes beyond its boundary of medically benefitting mankind and becomes a means of social or political manipulation, then it has gone beyond the bounds of respectability. Encroachment upon the social domains of "the human" make for a "empowered class" that will stop at nothing to gain absolute power and control over others. There is no limitation upon such "group behavior" when there are no checks and balances...and that is a judgment based on pertinent research!
.
Angie, have you read the Joe Farah article Jon Rowe posted here?
.
Yes, I have.
Are you suggesting that the religiously opinionated about our Founders intent should be re-educated?
Yes, I think this is so. I am also ignorant in these areas and have thought about sitting in some classes in the Spring....
What do you suggest to do about it? I can see where a religious radicalization is dangerous because of an inability to discriminate, or make judgments that are rational. The rule of law was to be an equal playing field, but when one has religious tolerance as a value, then you cannot make that judgment....and it prevents our nation from discriminating against those that might be a danger to our national security or the education of American children.
We certainly don't want to have the problems that Europe find itself in with Islam!
.
I just think a Blog is posted so readers can discuss it. It seems the article represents a problem in our society that confuses and distorts the general societal situation in the minds of the speakers audience--keeps them from the honest to goodness facts. It's like going through life being led by cliches and never getting down to the truth of what is really important. I could give examples all day long.
.
But, in this blog, I think it's best we discipline ourselves and stick with the subject. Don't you?
.
Goodness, Phil. I don't know what you mean, as "dicipline ourselves" to stay on target to the important issues?
What are those issues? That could be anything in our society. This blog is about America's history and its religious roots.
Maybe I have to bow out...as we are a nation that is just as much about revivalism, as rational theism, and presently atheism. That is a mixed bag where there is no consensus, except with the Restorationists...
And American majoritarianism is religious to the core. These value certain rights or policies because of a "God" frame, not because they might be better or worse for society....and evaluate them on a equal basis..'
I just heard snippets of a suggestion that birth control should be given to every women free of charge. That is abhorrent to the religious for reasons that are not rational. 'And yet, how many unwanted pregnancies, and neglected, abandoned and/or abused children would not be born to suffer.
Religious people are open to suffering if they think that it is approved by/for "God". It doesn't matter the topic. They accuse those that want to think about what is best for society and all concerned as seeking "pleasure" or "happiness", rather than "God"...
This I think is very misguided, yet I used to believe this too....
.
Like I wrote, Angie, ideology distorts communication.
.
Plain and simple.
.
Society itself is a concept in the mind about how or what a society should be about and for...so ideology is how we ALL approach society.
You are talking about predetermination of an elite class about another's place, a pragmatic place in society, irregardless of thier belief or opinion...that isn't liberty, at all.
Society itself is a concept in the mind about how or what a society should be about and for...so ideology is how we ALL approach society.
The French Revolution completely agreed, Angie. Edmund Burke completely disagreed. That's somewhat what this blog is about, and speaks directly to all the stuff you send down on us from orbit.
Every single regular commenter here does homework, Angie. Like Mr. Johnson on Dr. Barry Shain.
What is a society? What is a nation? What is politics? This blog isn't about Ayn Rand, who was an ideologue. It's about Edmund Burke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France
If you want to "get relevant" to the 21st century and the Founding, Edmund Burke and the French Revolution is ground zero. The rest is internet crap.
.
Society itself is a concept in the mind about how or what a society should be about and for...so ideology is how we ALL approach society.
.
IF we're going to discuss this aspect, I completely disagree with the comment. If we talk about society as a word found in the dictionary, then it is a concept--all words are such. But, to declare that to approach society is an ideology is more than not true; otherwise, let's see the proof. Great scholars have given their life time in the study of society. Vast knowledge has been gathered on the subject. Libraries are filled with volumes on society. It is the study of humanity. Of all things it is a subject most worthy of our study. It is what we do at this site when bloggers post their articles. We study the American Founding Era society. To turn it into an ideology is what Joe Farah does. And, as Jon says, "This is embarassing."
.
.
Public policy drives what society will be or do and THAT is ideological. Even Phil's article on Critical Theory is ideological. And social theory is based on ideas about society, before they are tested, tried and true...
One side claims "God", while the other side claims "Social Darwinism". These are our culture wars. And the humanist and scientist say, "Don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just work and do. Shut up, put your head in the sand and be obedient to the "gods"!"...Believers say "God said, I believe it, and that settles it", "Get on board, just believe, and obey"....
Are human robots?
.
O.K., maybe my perception is a poor understanding of what the word, ideology, means as it is being used here.
.
Angie, please explain it in your words so I understand what you are saying.
.
Thanks.
.
I guess I'm associating ideology too heavily with ideas not well founded or provable. And, that seems to be my error here.
.
.
"These are our culture wars..."
.
I am working on a "Culture Wars" article I will soon post here.
.
.
Phil,
This will not be a 'complete answer" (at least for me) because I am still attempting to "put it together". But.....
Actions, and words have meaning and value depending on one's perceptions, definitions, and understandings. These are cultural, social and personal.
When the "facts" out there don't correlate with a respected or respectable "self" then, one reacts emotionally.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Social Darwinians seek to promote a two level society. The "top dogs" and those that are to be "ministered to"...which sets up a social schema of some getting to own and determine their own lives, while the others are to be 'pitied", "helped" and "encouraged" by the "compassionate ministry of the church"...
Human are robots to the productionists, those that want to "peg or determine another's place". There is nothing wrong with this is there is full agreement by all parties, "up front". These are organizational good ole boy systems.
Humans are animals to the Darwinian evolutionist and they must be socially conditioned and trained to "obey", "submit", before they can be trusted to lead. Those that lead are those who have attained and earned "godship", greater than the animal response.
Civilization is "self government", which is obeying the law, respecting others (which doesn't mean one agrees, or has to cooperate with their "goals"), allowing diversity of viewpoints. It is an unplanned environment, that is maintained by the citiizens concern and involvement and the power of the law. This is considered a "social conscience".
But, how that "social conscience" is understood varies depending on how one percieves the way things work best. One might believe in a paternalistic government, while another believes that survival of the fittest is the best modus operendi to motivate...and such believe in ethical Egosim.
"Self" has to be grounded with personal understanding, commitment to values, as apart from coming to terms with oneself and why one believes or commits the way one choooses, there is no "self"...there is only a mimic of what has been taught or thought, without fully resolving the whys, and wherefores...
BTW, I can't stand paternalism in all its forms, government, church or friendships....
Angie,
Science provides explanations, options and predictive models. And, "social Darwinism" is not science. And scientists do not invoke the gods - at least not in terms of modern science. And, science is all about asking questions and finding answers. You seem seriously confused about science and its place in modern society.
And, who's claiming "social Darwinism" these days?
.
This will not be a 'complete answer" (at least for me) because I am still attempting to "put it together".
.
Angie, all I want is a fully understandable explanation of what you mean when you use the word, ideological. Until I have that, I don't understand.
.
.
Yes, it seems that the word ideology is in need of a definition.
.
BTW, I can't stand paternalism in all its forms, government, church or friendships....
.
That's why we have community activism, Angie. A lot of people can't stand a lot of things. They get involved in community action events to bring about change. You might find an activist group you can work with to help create a world that is more satisfying to you. You don't seem like you were cut out to just sit on the sidelines and bitch.
.
I can't stand paternalism in all its forms...
In a somewhat roundabout way we may be back to the founders. :)
PS - I notice that the WND post remains in tact.
Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument. [D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]
Mostly, it's a word used as a weapon to discredit ideas, ideals, and principles.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ideology
Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument. [D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]
.
That's what I thought it meant; but, Angie seems to be using some other definition.
.
Here is the One Look dictionary definition:
"a system of ideas and principles on which a political or economic theory is based
"Marxist/socialist/revolutionary ideology
"the dominant free-market ideology of the late 20th century
"a set of ideas with a strong social influence"
.
That all men are created equal is an ideology.
.
In the eyes of the law?
.
I’ve seen the word ideology used in different ways by different people. Some use it to mean philosophy or more specifically political philosophy. Others use it to mean political dogma which is close to the Raphael definition--”doctrine that is not supported by rational argument.” At other times it is used against any attempt at systematic political principles.
I think Angie is right about the denotation as Phil’s dictionary definition shows. However, the connotation is often negative as Tom and Phil had assumed. Traditional conservatives who are skeptical of the possibility of any explicit systematic political philosophy tend to use the term systematically against all system building.
It is also used by Pragmatists to dismiss political principles. John Dewey wrote a book after his return from the USSR in 1927 about how great things are going now that they have abandoned ideology in favor of experimentation. (Note: that was when Stalin got rid of the ideologue, Trotsky.) Wikipedia claims the word was first used as a pejorative by Napoleon against his liberal critics.
Bad principles as dogma will certainly blind one to reality. No principles can do as much damage. Just a few thoughts for you consideration.
Just wrapping up a dialogue on ideology, pragmaticism, empiricism vs. rationalism, etc. over here
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/07/18/a-defense-of-pragmatism/
In the comments section of course, as is my style. For the best part scroll near the bottom.
Since this thread is on comment #40, feel free to drag anything over to this blog that seems interesting.
And Phil, first we're created equal. "In the eyes of the law" is the corollary, the praxis.
.
Tom, interesting brouhaha. Do they ever get down to some real thinking or do they stay in the clouds?
.
.
I always enjoy and appreciate what Jason posts!
Ideology drves human action, as what one believes about the world, life and self is how one frames "reality". And how one views realty has to do with many things, both personal and professonal.
Because personal interests vary from person to person, there should be no coercion or control of human behavior concerning 'life goals'. But, those that are driven by "scientific concern" over natural resources, or "human concern" over social problems are or can be demanding upon the political frame n the media and the social frame in public policy. Whatever is a drving force of "goal attainment", is the driving force for propitiating a manipulative control on all lives, as "this is how life should be"...that is ideology and it can be empirical and pragmatic, for the "greater good" or "common cause" of course!
The same is true, of course, with transcendent "realties", as they are forces that drive human behavoior. And they also can be manipulative and controlling for "the Truth"!
When you combine them, the "greater good" and the Truth, you have Socialism at best and Communism at worst...Government beng the arbtrator of all of the above...
.
abtractor A typo?
.
Do you mean arbiter or abstracter?
.
Phil,
an arbitrator of justice...this is the difference between government and The State. The State doesn't make a distinction between "the people" and itself (government)...it s the collapse of the private into the public....
.
"...[speaking of] the difference between government and The State. The State doesn't make a distinction between 'the people' and itself (government)...it s the collapse of the private into the public...."
.
I see this statement as argumentative and I don't want to be involved in such here. All I see from that is divisive.
.
Sorry.
.
{:<)
.
.
Phil,
I am not beng argumenitive at all!
Government is established by man to protect....but was to be limited, as to its intrusiveness into privacy arenas..
The State, on the other hand, has its own goals or agendas, which the political class decide in their public policy debates...
When a citizen's right is violated, then don't we have a cause to redress the government?
On the other hand, we are all citizens and want to do the best that we can by our country.
Agnosticism was the stance of the State toward religious conscience, as a citizen had a right to choose, how, where, if and when he would worship. Some states have "blue laws" that set aside Sunday from other days. It used to be no store would be open, but now, it is the sell of alcoholic beverages....
Does the State have a responsblity to educate, its citizens? Well that depends on whether one believes that the parent or the State is responsible, which gets into the realm of familial responsibilities. It used to be the family that educated the child at home, until the public school system developed. But, at that time education was a value in our society. And the parents took it seriously.
Today, because of fundamentalism, the sacred or supernatural is viewed as "more important" or "all important", which can hinder one's attitude toward the Academic disciplines...
So, how are we to protect liberties, while taking education seriously? Both were values in colonial America, weren't they?
Entertainment, as well as virtual worlds make for competition for our focus and attention.
But, that doesn't mean that I would want the State to take away a parent's right, but demand homeschoolers have accountability to the State, and the parent's have choices about where their children will go to school. It is not the State's business to limit options, but to make it open so parents can determine where school and child fit best...and that would still mean that there would be certain standards that would have to be met at certan grade levels...
which means, Phil that the market of public opinion, via the parents and their children will determine the success of a certain school...
I don't think, as I understand the facts, right now, that it is best to make education a market driven value, or a market driven "outcome"....The government, n this respect and "the people" also, have responsibilities toward the "social contract"...that becomes a balance of power between parent and school; government and local school.
but, perhaps, I just affirmed a market driven value in that the parents choose the school?
.
I am not beng argumenitive at all!
.
I know that; but, my response would create an argument and I don't want to have that happen.
.
Phil,
Then it must be an approach toward or about the individual's right and the State's responsibility?
I recognize we have problems with affirming relgious conscience, when it comes to radicals and First Amendment rights....and having an educated population...
But, this s the point for me, without liberty, then we will all be pawns of a politcal class...I'd much rather have my ability to make a wrong choice than have no choice!
.
What it is about is your conclusive approach.
.
I don't have any problem with that. It's your right.
.
.
Yes, it is a right, and the human mind at work. Don't we all want to come to terms, n evaluating situatons, or judging things? and it is also self-protection, as I've been duped many times, so I don't trust. And my mind seeks for conclusions, I'm always seeking ways to understand or think through whatever I'm reading and trying to think about the implicatons and whether I would or could agree and why....so perhaps, I'd rather be responsible for my OWN life and those I Choose to be responsible for, than dependent on someone else telling what I should do and who I should be responsible for...but that doesn't mean I don't value another's insight, or opinion...we just might not agree.
If government is to provice justice for citizens, then when there is a conflict between parties, as to their approaches to life and liberty, and their values as to one is important for one to do in the world; who determnes HOW to judge such situations? That's perplexing to me. Any informaton out there, or thoughts?
Angie, it's the dispute going on as we speak. Societies---the American Founding---have always had an ethos a defining consensus worldview about "what is good," which is the primary question of political philosophy, if not philosophy itself.
But modernity says that we all have different worldviews and therefore, we must be "neutral" between them.
But as a good philosopher argues here against a libertarian, "neutrality" itself is an ethos, a philosophy, an ideology.
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/08/the-myth-of-libertarian-neutrality.html
When I first started studying philosophy, at age 50 [!], I thought I could bullshit my way through it, that my natural brilliance would be as good or better than the great minds of Western Civilization.
It was pretty humbling to get my ass kicked by people who had done a lot more study and thought on the Great issues. And then, as I discovered the Founding, to see that these great men---who really weren't major league philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume---were sorting through the Great Issues and founding a great nation at the same time.
As for our current time, the question I pose from Habermas, who is modern and a "functional atheist" is not philosophy, but political philosophy, not cosmic truth, just how are we to live with each other.
George Washington wasn't even in the front line of the Founding thinkers, but in his Farewell Address [assisted by James Madison] he asked
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them...
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion...
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The question here is not "what is the proper morality," or what is the proper ethos. That's philosophy.
The question posed by both Washington and Habermas is one of political philosophy: can a society, a nation, cohere and flourish with no ethos, with no consensus morality? What is wrong for one person isn't wrong for another?
This is relativism, or if that's too strong, it's subjectivism, it's radical individualism.
Nobody's using government to tell you which version of God to believe in; we still don't know and will never know which version Washington believed in. And Habermas, we don't even know what he believes in god, if at all.
These are not the questions we ask on this blog. These are not the questions that were asked by the Founders.
If you believe in radical individualism, then studying the Founders has no purpose for you, Angie. Pitch the baby with the bathwater and start over with the morning paper every day.
And if you don't touch on the American Founding somehow in every comment, you're simply abusing everybody's good will and affection, Angie. That's what Phil was trying to tell you, that to come in and do philosophy at the freshman level, hardly studying the Founders, that just isn't respectful to those who are studying hard the wisdom of the Founders. They asked these questions long ago, even "Old Muttonhead," George Washington, whom I admire more and more with each passing year.
.
I don't think, as I understand the facts, right now, that it is best to make education a market driven value, or a market driven "outcome"....The government, n this respect and "the people" also, have responsibilities toward the "social contract"...that becomes a balance of power between parent and school; government and local school.
.
Angie, take that to my blog site where it is an appropriate issue, we can kick it around over there.
.
.
Tom,
You suggested once that the average "joe" was governed by or under the law, the criminal outside the law, while the politically empowered acts behind the law...
That says a lot. Law and order is how conventonal morality functions. It is black and white, and right and wrong. No ifs ands and buts about it. This viewpoint does much damage to the frailites and complexities in life, as well as the attitudes and judgments of those that hold such views. It's a biblicist worldview, where authority holds power over individuals, instead of the person themselves having a sense and recogniton of their own values.
One is indoctrinaton by Church authorties, the other is an understandng of human liberty and diverse opinons. The West has had many influences to impact its development. Science being of major importance and impact.
Those that hold the opinion that they are "the authorities" in such matters, do not gain my respect, because they mimics/indoctrinated, not educated. Such an attitutde depersonalizes "life".. But, those educated to know that liberty cannot be defined, but defended know how to use the law to their advantage. And it is important that civil liberties be defended, because otherwise, we live in a limited and confined world. It is my understanding that when people conflict, there are precdents set in our court-rooms, am I completely off base? Am I asking a freshman level question?
It was pretty humbling to get my ass kicked by people who had done a lot more study and thought ...
The internet can be a humbling experience. I've been there. It can keep one honest ... especially if one ventures out of a narrow incestuous intellectual circle.
However, I've taken solace that even experts that I respect can't agree ... even after a life of scholarly immersion. Thus, it ain't easy but it can be challenging.
Phil,
I have gone to American Society to post there, as you suggested and I cannot post...I've tried two ways of signing in...
Jason, we've kicked mucho pseudo-scholarly ass around here, sent them away with their PhDs tucked back between their legs.
There's no replacement for doing yr homework, just ain't.
.
There's no replacement for doing yr homework.
.
None at all.
.
I've learned that lesson. And I have got stacks and stacks to do.
.
Feser is a smart guy who used to be a libertarian, so you know you are going to get a smart/thoughtful response from him. Indeed, smart/thoughtful enough to be invited by Cato's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (of which I published the entry on G. Washington) to express his thoughts.
However, his response strikes me as a big "straw man." Of course, libertarianism is not "totally neutral" (the position against which he appears to argue) as no comprehensive system can be. Libertarianism is not neutral on political liberty, but rather assumes arguendo or religiously (or if you will has some comprehensive philosophical work that builds a base of these "first principles" of liberty) the "good" of that position. Libertarianism also assumes government has a role in enforcing liberty, property, equal treatment of adult citizens, freedom from force and fraud and a few other basic common law areas of life. Thus, libertarianism is not "neutral" in these regards. However, these are lowest common denominator areas of law and public life with which all sane, small d democrats agree. From Pat Robertson on the extreme right and Noam Chomsky on the extreme left. (Though, both of them have their extreme left, extreme right moments, quotations of which, taken out of context belie that they are good "liberal democrats.")
But beyond that small circle with which no sane "liberal democrat" disagrees, libertarians are indeed "neutral" and offer the greatest amount of political liberty, equal treatment and pluralism, greater than than "other" systems. I don't think Feser adequately answered that critique of libertarianism. Nor do I think it can be answered.
Dunno if Feser answered, but I will: pluralism accommodates as much diversity as possible, libertarianism or "neutrality" is a destruction---abolition---of ethos and [consensus] morality.
It is relativism in the least; in reality, it is moral anarchy.
Tom,
How are you defining 'moral'? I believe I am hearng you say that "moral consensus", or the status quo is what maintains a society. If this is what you are stating, then, I doubt you would have much disagreement from anyone.
But, liberty, as a value, while not definng the individual's life, does protect from intrusive or overbearing governance, or tyranny. This would protect the private of personal. Wouldn't you want to promote this idea? And libertarians also are "free market economists". They believe that the market should drive things, not some "moral police officier"...and these also promote "self interest" as a value, for it protects and promotes accountability under a "social contract"...this is mutuality...as to business interests!
The Founding era didn't need to define "moral." Which shows you how anarchic we've become.
I HATE morality, as it affirms "the norms" of conventional society and it is the shaming culture of "not measuring up' to 'heritage'.... While I don't negate that there has to be SOME form of "normal", "life" isn't not about the norms, as it s too complex to be so straightforwardly simple!!!It is "biblicism", which defines life in "black and white". But, this s considered 'the discipline of the Church'!!
Penance is also useful for "church purposes'!!! to further their "ends" of conformity..The Church might as well, annihilate any separate personhood, or identity, which is also useful to serve the "Church's image'! Not good, not good at all!
Life is archaic...those that don't thnk so live n confined and narrow places with blinders on. And those that think that life can be ordered according to absolute standards believe in an overbearing God that demands conformity, as this is the way he made the world. Those that don't agree are "outside the camp" and must be taught how to live according to "God's law"! Brokenness, meaning a stripping away of any rights, is what they seek to do to those that want identification with their cultish mentality!
I HATE morality...
Well that clears that up.
jimmyraybob,
While I believe that the law was to protect liberty, those that are biblicists believe that the law was to define "God's right". There is much difference between the two.
The first allows for or gives room to differences of opinion, as well as diverse and complex situations that can't be judged by definitons on/about 'sin'.
Biblicists justify their right of or to priviledge, because of their "rghteousness" to defy or undermine another's liberty to life. "God' has granted special right to and of priviledge in their eyes, because of their "acceptability" according to religous standards. These standards have nothing to do with liberty, because liberty is based on self-governance and not "God's Governance"!
Well that clears that up.
Yes, I believe our work here is finished.
Tom,
Does "our work here is finished" mean for this particular post, or for American Creation, itself?
.
Yes, I believe our work here is finished.
.
Does that mean the end is near?
.
I wonder what Tim LaHaye has to say about that.
.
Phil,
I hope that you don't mean "the end is near" for America, or "the end is near" as in an apocalyptic hope, or "the end is near" for the blog site itself!!!
.
I mean the rapture is about to occur. Look to the east.
.
wooooooo
.
I'm being my nasty old self, again. Someone might just decide to delete this post.
.
heh heh heh
.
Why, you must know, Angie, this blog site will never end....
Well, that IS apocalyptic 'hope'....and many believe and live for that!
AND, I would miss this blog and all its "members" terribly, as I have grown to somewhat "know" them, though I haven't laid eyes on Tom's face (how about it, Tom? And just until the past week, didn't know your face, Phil!)
Post a Comment