There was a time – and being born in 1959, I am old enough to remember it – when the idea of Civilization needed no explanation or defense. Everybody knew what it meant. Civilization was tied to another term, now likewise mocked, and that term is Progress.
Progress was the idea that society was moving forward, upward, toward higher goals – better medicine, faster transportation, the brutality of hard labor replaced by stronger, then smarter machines; abundant energy, increased wealth and leisure: all of these things were greatly desired, and society was proud to provide them, proud to show them off in World Fairs and Expos and in the mythology of the movies.
Now “progress” and “civilization” are ironic terms, in sneer quotes, muttered with that pathetic, bored tone of cynical nihilism started by the narcissistic brats that I have been ten years behind for my entire life. Today, I try to exercise and watch my weight only so that I may live long enough to see the last of these radical hippies die in their sleep.
This is why Bill Whittle is one of my favourite reads. Read on. It’s all you’re getting today, because it’s enough.
Thanks, Bill Whittle, for the article in the first place, lots of food for thought. Thanks, Kate, for posting it, too.
When you say, Bill, “My only argument is that whatever genetic differences there are — and I belive there are some, based upon the scientific evidence — pale in comparison to the effect that attitude and immersion in a can-do culture has on success,” I agree.
And after agreeing, I obviously want to take a few steps back to attempt to explain why the U.S.–why the West–has been such a phenomenally successful human enterprise. It’s clear to me that it hasn’t been random or accidental.
Sometimes even I am at a loss for words. Thank you for this post, Kate. It has reminded me of the importance my job of home educating is and has given me new inspiration about what I want to teach my children.
Thank you Bill Whittle! And Kate! An astonishing piece. If I were just a little more paranoid, I’d think you were speaking directly to me.
There were many personal connections for me. I always wanted to fly (grew up around aviation). Instead, I discovered the motorcycle which I found to be the perfect, more practical rush, but very like flying (I have the tickets to prove it!). My first out of town ride was on the very day of Robert Kennedy’s death spiral. Like you with flight, I have learned a lot about myself and life from the motorcycle: too hot in a sharp curve? Remember: ‘you’ll run out of nerve before you run out of tire’; ‘don’t look at the guard rail — you’ll hit it if you do (target fixation); look way out ahead of the curve; you go where you look, like magic.
I am — wait for it — 10 years older than you (1949) the exact gap you refer to in your essay. However, despite coming of age in the Woodstock era, I never bought the phony love/peace circus and have been ashamed/embarrassed by boomers — the “worst generation” I’ve always thought, following immediately upon, but not surprisingly, the “best generation”. Ennui from assumed prosperity, surplus? Like you, I’m waiting for the pensioning off of the last hippie who hid out in academia and government.
For me your central thesis was: the unfathomable complexity of western civilization BUT with no overarching central plan. This is what drives the leftist elites NUTS: that their plans are not needed. That is the ultimate insult. No, worse than that: that civilization SOARS because of the very absence of those central plans!
Your thesis reminded me of a famous essay by Leonard Read (founder of Foundation of Economic Education in 1946) called I, Pencil. I had provided a comment and link earlier but it disappeared. Someone above referred astutely to yours as a kind of “I, Pencil on steroids”. Indeed.
For sda readers not familiar with “I, Pencil”, here’s a link:
http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=316
(Trying again, with no link???)
Thank you Bill Whittle! And Kate! An astonishing piece. If I were just a little more paranoid, I’d think you were speaking directly to me.
There were many personal connections for me. I always wanted to fly (grew up around aviation). Instead, I discovered the motorcycle which I found to be the perfect, more practical rush, but very like flying (I have the tickets to prove it!). My first out of town ride was on the very day of Robert Kennedy’s death spiral. Like you with flight, I have learned a lot about myself and life from the motorcycle: too hot in a sharp curve? Remember: ‘you’ll run out of nerve before you run out of tire’; ‘don’t look at the guard rail — you’ll hit it if you do (target fixation); look way out ahead of the curve; you go where you look, like magic.
I am — wait for it — 10 years older than you (1949) the exact gap you refer to in your essay. However, despite coming of age in the Woodstock era, I never bought the phony love/peace circus and have been ashamed/embarrassed by boomers — the “worst generation” I’ve always thought, following immediately upon, but not surprisingly, the “best generation”. Ennui from assumed prosperity, surplus? Like you, I’m waiting for the pensioning off of the last hippie who hid out in academia and government.
For me your central thesis was: the unfathomable complexity of western civilization BUT with no overarching central plan. This is what drives the leftist elites NUTS: that their plans are not needed. That is the ultimate insult. No, worse than that: that civilization SOARS because of the very absence of those central plans!
Your thesis reminded me of a famous essay by Leonard Read (founder of Foundation of Economic Education in 1946) called I, Pencil. I had provided a comment and link earlier but it disappeared. Someone above referred astutely to yours as a kind of “I, Pencil on steroids”. Indeed.
For sda readers not familiar with I, Pencil, google I Pencil (2nd hit is Foundation of Economic Education link).
Interesting discussion. I have a couple of points to add.
First, I interpreted Whittle’s cultural argument (or perhaps it’s a (non)racial argument) more broadly than some. I don’t think he literally meant that any given individual is equally interchangeable, ignoring innate individual aptitudes for specific tasks. I interpreted his point as quite the opposite. In a tribal society, one’s role, options, and opportunities are prescribed by tradition, which ignores the idiosyncrasy of innate talents. In a modern culture individuals are free to search, find and develop whatever their “hard wired” talents and interests.
Regarding the survivability of Western Civilization, it seems that those with a more pessimistic view of future outcomes predicate their argument on continuation of the current course. ET has raised the issue of adaptability in relation to technology and industry. I would further that argument to the political sphere and beyond.
Western Civilization will survive because of political adaptable (the feature of self-governance that in my opinion makes it the most durable system of societal organization), and that sweet little feature “hard wired” into human animals called survival instinct. As events occur, opinions change, new solutions and tactics are employed.
I see things playing out one of two ways. 1) There will be an Islamic Reformation, which I think is quite possible. For the Islamic system to gain enough power and momentum to actually destroy more than a building here, and intimidate a population there, the “Caliphate” would have to re-emerge. For this to happen, Islam would have to overcome the deeply seated sectarian and tribal differences played out violently in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere within the Muslim world. This gap cannot be bridged without Islam becoming more inclusive, tolerant, and democratic, therefore losing much of it’s militancy and tribalism. I also think more available access to information via the internet is creating a forum for interaction and change within the Muslim world, along with external pressures to democratize provide the required infrastructure for the Reformation process to develop and grow. In which case, the role of the political West will be to encourage the process, while continuing the war on terror.
Option 2) If Islam does not reform, or can somehow manage to homogenize AND retain it’s militancy, then violence against the West will continue to grow. In this case, westerners will continue the process of realizing the nature of the threat, will adapt accordingly, and this will get very bloody. Eventually, western survival may dictate taking the gloves off and inflicting massive damage on a WWII type of scale. Hope it doesn’t come to that, but if pushed to the wall, we may have to win this one the old fashioned way.
Either way, I have great faith in both our survival instinct, and our ability to adapt and respond.
Wow. A lot has happened on here since I began my own ramblings. Haven’t yet read all the subsequent posts, but I hope my post is still relevant. Yeaaaa — good to see I correctly interpreted Bill’s point regarding culture’s impact on individual achievement. Now, to catch up…
FYI, ET and others, who might like to listen to a fascinating interview with Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the world’s leading scholars in the history of Christianity and medieval intellectual history: Stephen Jay Gould was a good friend of his, and Pelikan recounts that when Gould was asked what might be the best way of communicating with any other life forms in the universe his answer was to play over and over again Bach’s Mass in B Minor in all the languages it has been sung in, and ask if they have anything equivalent to it?
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/pelikan/pelikan-personalmemoir.shtml (click on Stream for interview)
kevinb- no, thermodynamics is not applicable to a biological organism but to a physico-chemical system. A horse does not morph into a plethora of paramecium.
Cheri- N.Korea and Russia have little economic or other power. China does, in at least 10 or more years, and it is exponentially rushing into capitalism, and will, in my opinion, emerge as democratic. A massive population, engaged in personal agendas of accumulating wealth, require political power as well. That’s democracy.
And agitfact – I agree (!!!) with everything you said – yes, to the role of reason and the ‘age of enlightenment’…which began with the Right To Question and To Doubt (eg. Perceval and the Grail, Abelard…all 12,13th c).
As an atheist, I don’t put much stock in religion, but, as an academic, the rise of the Christian religion is interesting – except for the most unfortunate period of about 800 years (the dark ages) because the church chose the Athanasian rather than Arian interpretation.
But, what is interesting about the Christian religion, is that it is a non-tribal religion. That’s quite a ‘first’. Both Islam and Judaism are tribal, whereas Christianity considers that you are not born into the religion, but must choose it – and – all people are equally able to choose and live in it. That’s indicative of an era where the population was increasing and migrating out of tribal territories..
Tom Penn – nice post. I fully agree with your first scenario.
This has been, I think, an excellent discussion and one of the reasons why Kate’s blog is so very good.
Aaaah, you can alway scount on agitfact to deny Communist/Socialist atrocities of the 20th century.
Actually agitfact is very apropos for such a revisionist! Nonetheless I will henceforth dub thee “Left Wing Zundel”, or LWZ for short.
Thanks agitfact,
It only took about about 140 some odd posts by SDAers but you got it correct.
There’s so much blow harding going on here with most trying to show how clever they are. All you have to do is look how posts end (never with a conclusive result but merely a fade to grey). This just shows that posters are more interested in seeing their own words on a computer screen than reaching a conclusion.
sickofdalibs…You just had to get that home schooling BS in, didn’t you?
As for Bill…he’s a great writer that sets the scene perfectly but a whittle off the mark with a circuitous thesis. He’s been reading way too much Ayn Rand and not enough Hunter S. Thompson.
ET: “A horse does not morph into a plethora of paramecium”.
It does when it dies! And that is what happens to civilizations when they fail – the enormous Roman Empire fell into many pieces, as did the Ottoman, the Soviet, and every other empire you might wish to name.
What does thermodynamics teach us? That the natural progression is from high order to disorder. It takes a lot of hard work to make things go the other way. When people start taking things for granted, that’s the beginning of the slide.
And I don’t know what your body is made from, but mine is most definitely a chemical system.
KevinB,
Mammal bodies are bio-electro-chemical that consume calories and give off heat.
Sonsofmonkeysandswine,
I’ll be a monkey’s uncle myself, but where have I denied one of the “Communist/Socialist atrocities of the 20th century”? I thought my list of casualty-causing conflicts was pretty complete between Red Revolution and wars of national liberation. What have I missed?
I will admit that I hesitate to lump Communism and socialism together. Seems to me that there was socialism before Communism, and there still is socialism after Communism, so you might wish to reconsider that lump yourself.
Cheers,
LWZ
(Shorter version of spamtrapped post from yesterday:)
I’ve said my thing from a scientific data point of view; I’ll try another perspective. The statement in the article that really made me go “WTF???” was the following:
“In fact, I’ll bet my life on the fact that I can make astronauts and engineers out of any healthy babies of any color.”
“Astronauts and engineers” is sorta like me saying I could make “university graduates and Nobel Prize winners”; a little too much wiggle room there for my liking, but no big deal.
In any case I can’t imagine this statement has much support among the public at large and particularly those who have raised children. I’d suggest if one were to go to, say, an online discussion board for parents raising children and posted the following:
“Hi folks. Some male geek with a blog is of the opinion that he can take any baby and raise – presumably alone, as a single geek male father, in a society that bans child beating and forces even homeschooled children to be taught crap – to be an engineer or an astronaut. In fact, since he’s willing to bet his life on it, we can infer that he is 100% certain of this and he completely discounts any possibility whatsoever that the kid could go bad, or even turn out “average”. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks.”
…Whittle’s point of view would not be warmly received. And, in my opinion, rightly so.
Saying one is 100% certain of success in this endeavour precludes any possibility whatsoever that said hypothetical kid could possibly turn out either bad, average, pregnant, stoned, or just different than the expected outcome of engineer/astronaut. IQ is far from the only variable at play here with a nature/nurture component.
Anyway, notwithstanding Bill’s subsequent remarks his underlying assumption is indeed the very definition of a pure Tabula Rasa POV. Perhaps coincidently, perhaps not, it also serves as a handy (if scientifically invalid) justification for the Bush Administration’s pro-illegal immigration policies.
It’s Judeo-Christian. You have to account for the impact of the scholarly nature and familial customs of the Jewish traditions. The effects in medicine, science, music, literature, et cetera are phenomenal. Something like over 90% of the Nobel Prizes in physics have been awarded to Jews.
And Kevin, thermodynamics applies to molecules, not living organisms.
“It only took about 140 some odd posts, but you (agitfact) got it correct.”
David Brown, you’re the empitome of the arrogant yet bafflingly small minded left.
What correct exactly?
And are you marking the paper?
kevinB – again, a complex organism does not morph into a simple organism; a horse does not transform into a paramecium. A paramecium is not the ‘many pieces’ bits of a horse. It’s an entirely different organism from a horse, and the two simply don’t convert to each other.
The matter of a horse may disintegrate into its chemical components, but, that doesn’t mean that these chemical components, on their own, transform into biological organisms. If that were the case, I could just take out my magic bowl, slush in some chemicals, mix, and come up with a new pet dog. I suggest you read up on the differences between chemical and biological realities.
And no, the natural progression is not from ‘high order’ to ‘disorder’. You’ve been reading pop culture books on Chaos. The natural progression is from simple systems to complex systems.
I’m sure, david brown, that your description that most posters are simply interested in their own words, doesn’t apply to you. Does it?
“The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular.” agitfact at July 31
The question is: Was this change entirely for the better? Mod cons, constitutional democracy, etc. So it seems.
However, it’s not quite so simple. What about 20th century secular politics… hmmm? More dead under the various secular credos than in 1000 Medieval Inquisitions. The Spanish version only accounted for several hundred executions, Stalin’s box score is, by most accounts, over 8 million and counting.
However, the so-called “Enlightenment” turns out, for all its wrong turns, to have been possible only due to the centuries-long dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem.
The concept of “logos” (reason/idea) as developed by the Greeks was translated into personal and cultural understanding in Jewish (the Alexandrian Septuagint interpreters), and later, Christian thought. The centrepiece of this, arguably, is found stated in John 1:1 “en arche ‘hen ho logos” (Gk. transliteration) Eng. translation: “In the beginning was Reason/ Word/ Concept”.
Developing from this understanding of a priciple which is at once rational and personal is the culture which values and relates natural law with reason and revelation, spawing Western science and critical thought based upon a spiritual principle, a conceptual foundation.
The secular degeneration of “Enlightenment” ideas severed Athens from Jerusalem and led via Hegel and Marx to 1930’s Berlin, 1918-1989 Communist Moscow, Mao, Pol Pot… need one say more. These 20th century examples of the divorce of faith from reason make all the cultural failures of medieval Europe pale by comparison.
Enlightenment, definitely a mixed bag. Drawing in its best expressions very much from the Christian well according to much recent fair-minded scholarship (Alister McGrath, R.J.P. Williams, et al). Seems as though the “Enlightenment” is in for a rougher ride than the “Crusades”, if many recent scholars are to be heard.
“The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular.” agitfact at July 31
The question is: Was this change entirely for the better? Mod cons, constitutional democracy, etc. So it seems.
However, it’s not quite so simple. What about 20th century secular politics… hmmm? More dead under the various secular credos than in 1000 Medieval Inquisitions. The Spanish version only accounted for several hundred executions, Stalin’s box score is, by most accounts, over 8 million and counting.
However, the so-called “Enlightenment” turns out, for all its wrong turns, to have been possible only due to the centuries-long dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem.
The concept of “logos” (reason/idea) as developed by the Greeks was translated into personal and cultural understanding in Jewish (the Alexandrian Septuagint interpreters), and later, Christian thought. The centrepiece of this, arguably, is found stated in John 1:1 “en arche ‘hen ho logos” (Gk. transliteration) Eng. translation: “In the beginning was Reason/ Word/ Concept”.
Developing from this understanding of a priciple which is at once rational and personal is the culture which values and relates natural law with reason and revelation, spawing Western science and critical thought based upon a spiritual principle, a conceptual foundation.
The secular degeneration of “Enlightenment” ideas severed Athens from Jerusalem and led via Hegel and Marx to 1930’s Berlin, 1918-1989 Communist Moscow, Mao, Pol Pot… need one say more. These 20th century examples of the divorce of faith from reason make all the cultural failures of medieval Europe pale by comparison.
Enlightenment, definitely a mixed bag. Drawing in its best expressions very much from the Christian well according to much recent fair-minded scholarship (Alister McGrath, R.J.P. Williams, et al). Seems as though the “Enlightenment” is in for a rougher ride than the “Crusades”, if many recent scholars are to be heard.
ET, I completely agree with your assessment of China’s future, and I sure do hope we’re right!
Vitruvius,
If you’re referring to my comments, I don’t deny that the Jews have made significant contributions to the benefit of all mankind. All I was saying is the ‘Judeo’ part of Judeo-Christianity had little to do with the philosophical foundations of modern western civilization. They of course benefited from it, as many of their inventions, including the state of Israel, stand today as a testament.
…there’s an old saying out at the farm that kinda fits about militant Islamics:
“if it’s yellow, let it mellow; if it’s brown, flush it down!”
Apologies for the double post. I go my “a” mixed up with my “s” … no rude comments please.
IGNATIUS
David Brown,
Oh yeah, it’s all for you, baby. You are totally the one I think of when I spoke of homeschooling. You are the wind beneath my wings. You are the meaning in my life. I even dream of you at night. Okay, now I need a shower and a package of steel wool to clean the vomit off.
And here I was, complimenting Mr. Whittle. For shame.
BTW, I found some great history curriculae. Interested?
Dear Irwin Daisy – I’m sure you mean no ill will to the Jews but I think your view is too narrow. Please read what Ignatius has said about the foundational and seminal influence of the Jews to ALL of Westerrn civilization–LONG before 90% or whatever the huge number is of Jews who’ve won Nobel Prizes for all kinds of things. Yes, Jews in the present day have done marvellous things. Before that, their ancestors set up the rest of us to do marvellous things. Please check out Thomas Cahill’s The Gifts of the Jews, the first in his “Hinges of History” series, which explains this. I found what he had to say very convincing.
Thank you, Ignatius, for putting agitfiction straight about the glories–how about gories?–of the Enlightenment as it ran its course through the killing fields of the 20th century. Let’s see if there’s any response.
David Brown, your comments are ungracious and unhelpful–unintelligent too.
sickofdalibs: homeschooling? As a teacher in the public system, I salute you. Home’s a very good place for your kids to be. As ET confirms, the education system in Canada has been captured by the “tolerant, diversity loving” (my words) left and is now in enemy territory.
Ignatius mentioned the divorce of faith and reason. I believe that we’re seeing that everywhere in the public square today, where religion–especially Christianity–has been banned. So, at school, while we have behaviour codes up the ying yang, the behaviour–divorced from any allegiance to something greater than ME, which is what faith is all about–continues to deteriorate precipitously.
And ET, I do ascribe the golden rule to religion–not just to Judaism and Christianity. In his prohetic book, The Abolition of Man, about the descent of civilization that’s playing out now in a neighbourhood near you, C. S. Lewis labels the golden rule the Tao: He said that it is found in the moral codes of ALL the world’s oldest religions. And, no wonder: If we don’t have empathy for our neighbours and they for us, the whole house of cards collapses.
Which brings us back to the enemy being US (not the US–thanks, new kid!). Visit almost any public schoolyard or classroom today: The lack of empathy and altruism–remember, I’ve been a first row observer for well over 30 years–let alone common courtesy, is astonishing by its absence. It’s truly a dog eat dog world now. Completely cut off from Canada’s religious and cultural roots–we get multi-culti, feminist, New Age pap instead–everyone’s treading water in their own shallow swamp.
The Behaviour Codes are stated AND stated AND stated AND stated . . . ad nauseum, but everyone knows that they’re rarely observed. The infractions are so frequent that administration usually turns a blind eye or turns them back to the teacher. The kids know there’s never going to be a commensurate punishment, no matter how egregious their actions. e.g., like falsely accusing teachers of assault and completely getting away with it even after a late confession: scandalous! The very worst kids and their parents up the ante and administration appeases and caves. It’s a vicious circle–and more and more often, literally vicious. As someone at sda pointed out recently the care and compassion are altogether feigned–because they’re based on pure feel-goodism and emotionalism, nothing real. Of course, fed on this thin gruel, any kind of robust altruism or sacrifice–what’s THAT?–dies a natural death.
And guess what? So does our civilization.
Like Tom and ET, I KNOW that people are resourceful and adaptable. However, re the slide into barbarism that we see all around us, especially in the youth culture–the barbarism of our Islamic enemies is a whole other threat–I haven’t seen much resourcefulness. Left to the tender mercies of the lefties, who run–into the ground–just about everything these days–pace [Latin word], PMSH and the CPC!–appeasement’s about all I see. What we really need is the reestablishment of real discipline. However, the Charter has us over a barrel on this one: Every consequence–when it’s really needed, which is often these days, what’s wrong with good, old fashioned, EFFECTIVE punishment?–appears to infringe on the miscreant’s rights and entitlements. Not much room for resourcefulness here.
Tom and ET, civilzations rise and fall. What makes you so sure that’s not going to happen to us? I’d love to agree with you but I honestly don’t see too many hopeful signs at the moment.
Bob, you missed the point entirely — congratulations. You claim that the reason I may or may not be able to do such a thing as make “astronauts and engineers” is because of individual differences, not racial ones. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Only now, because I argue that the prime motivator for achievement is individually based (specifically, what people are taught by their parents) and that I believe this trumps genetics by a large margin, you then claim the point is invalid because I cannot control for individuals. So, if I read you corrrectly, my argument that this is based on individualism, not race, is invalid because I have not taken into account enough variations of individualism?
Oh, and the “geek male” — that was a nice ad hominem touch…always a sign that someone is out of ammunition. I don’t want to go all Cyrano on you, but since there is so much about what I believe online, and so little about you — is that really the best you can do? Heaven forbid you would be able to make a point without sneering, but if that would cause you some facial pain, could you not put a little more effort into the insults? It would certainly make my life more entertaining.
“Thank you, Ignatius, for putting agitfiction straight about the glories–how about gories?–of the Enlightenment as it ran its course through the killing fields of the 20th century. Let’s see if there’s any response.” – Lookout at 06:57 PM
Hell, Lookout, someone who signs himself Ignatiua/s and knocks the Enlightenment must have been trained by Jesuits. My poor Basilian education hardly entitles me to debate with one of those (although I still have a copy of “Athens and Jerusalem” from the ’60s.)
Quite possible that the Enlightenment was a “mixed bag.” It was human, after all, and never pretended to divine descent or inspiration. But to make people like the man who wrote “Eternal Peace” (Kant) responsible for the 20th century horrors that happened because they were ignored, does seem to stretch things a bit. Of course, without the Enlightenment, conservatives could live happily with the Absolutism that would still be in business (having been divinely ordained, if you check your church history – Catholic or Protestant versions.)
We can quibble about details, but I haven’t seen any reason yet to revise the role of the Enlightenment in the development of western civilization. I wouldn’t blame the Apostles for all the evils of Christianity either, and by God, there have been enough of those.
By the way, as a historical fact, the Golden Rule was preached by Confucius some 450 years before J.C.
Thanks for the response agit, but I’m not converted.
You say, “Quite possible that the Enlightenment was a ‘mixed bag.'” Now that’s an understatement, if ever there was one: You might have mentioned this earlier. Quibble about details? 20 plus million deaths and you have no reason to change your opinion? Well, it’s a free country . . .
Yes, I believe Confucius would be included in Lewis’s Tao.
Lookout,
what’s with the 20 million dead? Are you really blaming the Enlightenment for Stalin? Good luck in proving that connection. Why not blame Christianity, since the man was a seminarian before he became a socialist.
agitfact:
“But to make people like the man who wrote “Eternal Peace” (Kant) responsible for the 20th century horrors that happened because they were ignored, does seem to stretch things a bit.”
Your “facts” are innactuate once again, agit. No reference was made to Kant in my post.
However, this is obviously a touchy point for the “enlightened”.
On the other hand, I quite agree that how “things happened because they are ignored” does really stretch the imagination for those who claim credit for the benefits of the “Enlightenment” but are not prepared to take responsibility for the enormous toll in human death in the same period. How then is it that you and your comrades can blithely condemn the errors of the Middle Ages on Christian faith? Go figure.
There are, as a matter of fact, plenty of critics of Kant. I don’t happen to be one. Actually, I don’t know of many who made it through the “Critique of Pure Reason” and rather doubt that you are one, agit, for all your advocacy of “Peace” in the abstract.
As to my Jesuit training, the name Ignatius actually is derived from Ignatius of Antioch, an early Patriarch (pace PC’s) of the Levant Christians i.e the troubled area where the your “enlightened” comrades of the left seem determined to prop up the Shia extremists. The area was, before it became captive to terrorists, a Christian centre of culture and learning.
Once again, your assumptions are wrong on both points: Kant wasn’t and Ignatius isn’t.
However, why let the facts stand in the way? It would appear that consitency, even with respect to inaccuracy, is (if not a virtue) comforting for agitprops of the “Enlightenmed” Left.
BTW Box scores for secular deaths in the “enlightened” 20th century: 40 million and counting… by comparison the Middle Ages look more and more like they reflect Kant’s “eternal peace”.
And Kevin, thermodynamics applies to molecules, not living organisms.
Posted by: Vitruvius at July 31, 2006 03:38 PM
ah yes vituvius, and do tell, what are living organisms made of ???? hmmm ???? is not the STRUCTURE of those groups of molecules (ie the organism) completely and forever free of said laws ????
you have some very selective views sirrah.
Thanks, Ignatius, for the useful information.
lookout,
I’ll accept that my comments appear unintelligent and unhelpful. Pseudo intellectuals usually have a difficult time understanding concepts that don’t fit their pre-conceived notions or formal education.
However, graciousness is not a requirement unless you’re trying to make friends as well has nothing to do with facts and logic.
“As a teacher in the public system, I salute you.” This is a hypocritical traitorous statement. In the business world you would loose your job for this type of behaviour. Besides as a teacher you’re least in a position to make objective comments.
May I suggest your thought process has gone soft from far too many holidays.
Ignatius,
so Kant (1724-1804) had nothing to do with the Enlightenment! And he never wrote “Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone,” or “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment.”
However, you did not make Kant individually responsible for the horrors of the 20th century, I must grant you that bit of Jesuistry. Neither did I make him solely responsible for the Enlightenment – if you recall “people like …”
I recognize the true neo-con by the absolute denial of fact to suit the propaganda. And by the ad hominem.
“Loose” my job–as in maybe preparing for retirement?
You’re a pompous fool, David. That’s my objective opinion. Rather than provide reasonable objections to what you dislike, you spout unintelligent gibberish and totally unjustifiable insults. [THIS IS MY THESIS.]
[HERE BEGINS MY SERIES OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.]
I’m a crackerjack teacher and my mind’s just fine, thank you. (And I have no pretensions to being a “pseudo intellectual”: That’s your put-down.) As the public school system’s very good at turning out third rate, armchair “thinkers” like you–who can’t spell homonyms either–from long experience, I know exactly what I’m talking about.
And before you use such big words as “hypocrite”, perhaps you should understand their meaning. Example: I’d indeed be a hypocrite if I SUPPORTED the stunted, PC-driven, hypocritical–“The kids and literacy come first”–aims and abysmal track record of the public system. My views on the deficits of the system–that’s called “critical thinking”–are straight up and not in the least “traitorous” or hypocritical.
Neither is my staying in the system: I’m one of the authentic and good things about it. (This is not arrogance: I’ve got a rock solid track record to back up my claim.) You want your challenged child to learn to read and write? I can do it, and have, for literally hundreds of students. (That’s when the system’s not hampering me, as it does these days, with ludicrous and invalid expectations, e.g., trying to teach a full literacy program while dealing with violence prone autistic students with no additional support. Do you find it “traitorous” of me to mention this or to try to change my working conditions to better serve my students and their needs? Or do you think I should just sit tight and go with the flow?)
I’d actually be “hypocritical and traitorous” if I pretended all’s well in the public system, as the bureaucrats do. THAT would be a complete sell out re my students and their needs. Then I truly would be a traitor–to my ideals, my abilities, and the success of my students.
If I were writing your report, you’d receive a very low grade for logical and critical thinking. In the “Next Steps” section, I’d write something like, “In written expression, David sometimes has difficulty formulating and sustaining an argument. In order to express his ideas in a concise manner, he needs to acquire a set of specific vocabulary, which he understands. (Use of a dictionary is highly recommended.) David also needs to be clear about his thesis and present a series of logical arguments to support it: Put downs and non-sequitur inferences are invalid techniques in order to meet the standard of expression expected of a student his age.”
You fully deserved that: It’s a parody of your unpleasant attempts to make your unpleasant and unintelligent points. I’d like to see one post from you where the primary object is not to insult those with whom you disagree. Even if the issue’s contentious, the rest of us are usually able to challenge one another in a courteous manner. I know, I know, you don’t think courtesy really matters: “However, graciousness is not a requirement unless you’re trying to make friends as well [, and this] has nothing to do with facts and logic.” (Back to your report: “Proofreading and editing are also highly recommended.”) If I want to make gracious comments to a fellow poster, I don’t see what your problem is. I don’t confuse it with making an argument. Pleasantries stand on their own: They constitute some of the glue which holds together our fragile civilization. Your asinine objection to my saying something nice surely derives from a moral pygmy mindset. Get over it. (Maybe you’re just jealous because I don’t say nice things to you. I’ll be happy to if your comments ever merit such a response.)
[CONCLUSION: SEE THAT IT MATCHES MY THESIS, STATED AT THE BEGINNING.]
By all means, take on the posters at sda. But play by the rules and stop behaving like a spoiled toddler, whose preferred way of dealing with frustration is to have a tantrum. Grow up and smarten up.
———————————————-
P.S. Why not set yourself a challenge? Respond to this with no put-downs. If you follow the steps I’ve provided, you should be able to do it. Disagree as much as you want, disagree as vociferously as you want–but civilly and reasonably. If you do that, I’ll respond in kind.
Good luck!
agit,
You keep speaking of Kant, listing titles and, by the way, making ad hominem remarks (I am neither a neo-con nor a Jesuit).
I have simply responded to your overheated comments on secularism and baseless assumptions by saying that I did not raise the subject of Kant. Everyone accepts that he was an “Enlightenment” philospher.
I was merely pointing out some of the tragic outcomes of secularism (subject of this thread) which you claim is the heart, in fact the entirety, of the “Enlightenment”. I am not actually sure that Kant would agree with you on that. We’ll leave it to those who have actually read Kant and claim to understand him. I don’t even claim to understand Hegel other than to know that many of those who promoted Nazism and other secular regimes made lengthy references to Hegel and the secular Enlightenment.
Remember your statement, Agit: “The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular.”
If you deny then that the secular states which arose following the “Enlightenment”: Nazi Germany, Communist China, Russia, Cambodia, Cuba etc., are responsible for the greatest brutality, evil and butchery in human history then you have redefined the term “fact”, agit.
But, of course, that is what agitprop is all about: denying facts and redefining history.
ET: “And no, the natural progression is not from ‘high order’ to ‘disorder’. You’ve been reading pop culture books on Chaos. The natural progression is from simple systems to complex systems.”
And yet, all the great empires of the world have broken apart. Ask the people of Iraq and Lebanon how their complex civilizations have held up. Whole swathes of Africa are living lives of bare susbsistence that were measurably better in their colonial days. I don’t read pop culture books on Chaos theory; I read history.
Yes, we’ve made some incredibly complex things, but some of those have also gone horribly wrong. The federal government for example. And people are finding that smaller and simpler is often better.
Consider Windows XP. It is one of the largest software products in existence in terms of number of lines of code. It is also full of bugs, inconsistencies, and security holes large enough to drive a small truck through.
Now consider Linux. It is hundreds of times smaller, more secure, and so rock-solid it’s my bet that SDA is running on a Linux server right now. When it gets a bit easier to install for non-geeks – which it is doing every day – the home user is going to turn to it instead of shelling out $500 for Windows Vista.
So, there’s two concrete examples of complex systems giving way to smaller, less complex systems. I didn’t say that things *never* get more complex; check my original post. I only said that it goes the other way too.
lookout
Thank you. I love home schooling. I think you are spot on about David, also. If all teachers were like you, I would have no problem with the public education system. I had some really great teachers, but I also had some very terrible teachers. It is not a comment on the teaching profession that I home school, but on the educational system. Thank you for understanding that.
David Brown
Where do you work that you are not able to compliment the competition? It is a good thing we live in a country with free speech where people are allowed to have differing opinions; not to mention that I am not the competition, but a compatriot of lookout’s. We are both interested in the best education available to children. Unfortunately, right now, I don’t believe that is the government’s school.
Kevin B,
“It (simple systems to complex systems) goes the other way too.”
I think the Egyptian pyramids would prove that. And perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada as well.
sickofdalibs, you’re most welcome! So we have many things in common: I love teaching too–when I’m left alone to do it. That’s one of the joys of home schooling: A blessed absence of the constant butting in and dead ends of officialdom. I know you can get more focused teaching done in a fraction of the time it takes in the public school, especially with the multitude of class management–bad behaviour!–issues we have these days.
All the best to you and your kid(s)!
Kevin B,
Simplify and thus improve design. Correct about Windows XP and switching to Lynux.
The current car with dozens of compplex systems to support maintain and lose money on.
The Electric Vehicle, our next car, with only steering, battery, brakes and tires to service and no gas or oil to buy.
Hope Israel puts down the hez so we can enjoy our EV rather than simplifying back to the 14th century. = TG
Kate,
The Bill Whittle post is exactly what I had in mind for the “Letter from Canadian War Veteran” to follow the “Letter from Canadian Taxpayer” post. Thank you for bringing it forth. It explains the value of our veteran’s sacrifices and points out why more sacrifice is required by everyone connected “by the web” to keep civilization progressing. Dirty word, “Progress” is. It wouldn’t exist except for the word “Sacrifice”. But those two words give birth to another: “Civilization”.