Comments on IN SUPPORT OF TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY

Go to The Agnostics Primer - Add a comment - Go to IN SUPPORT OF TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY

i think i might have just created a new ethics in AArdvark's blog

that addresses this. it's probably old news but i was having trouble comming up with any preexisting way of explaining myself. basically ideology and personal consistency, or state practicality are untenable bedfellows. i can see ideology being a source of strength when the enemy is also driven by ideology, but that strengthis relative to the struggle and as unfair as it might sound that struggle must of necessity make one weak, that is if one chooses to fight ideology with ideology. what ever is won in the relative battle will be lost "objectively" in what had to be given up in personal consistency to wage it. this is where i'm going anyway. it seems clear to me that the argument itself, that of philosophy, has taken place "out on a limb" as it were. htere needs to be some new acknowlegement of "authentic difficulties" which are inherant in the condition of living and "rhetorical difficultie" which are just that, and prinipally ideological, with personal ideology playing a role in that as well. most ideologies would argue that they are doing just this but it seems that it should be plain that most philosophical dialog misses or merely toys with the point and that there should be a much more direct way of approaching it. an authentic difficulty looks much differnet than a rhetorical one when squarely confronted. rhetorical difficulties involve a conflict with what someone else has stated or implied, thus there is always a sense of futility in victory. an authentic difficulty is independent of what anyone has ever said about anything and can in a very fundamental way be address without reference to other commentary or the stance of this or that establish thought. the inherant failure in contemplating an authentic difficulty, if it doesn't cruch one's spirit, actually can retun a sense of gratification and even a heady air of true wisdom. perhaps i am merely reading Neitchze's ground here when i say that the ability to stand alone, without reference to the world and its people and ideas, is what will give one the most strength when returning to that world. anyway, as garbled as this might sound, i'm crystalizing a little bit here. we'll see what comes of it.

posted by rovesciato on November 9, 2004 at 1:07 AM | link to this | reply

Now it is I who am puzzled

Having a strong ideology does not necessarily blind one to the views of others or to the legitimacy of those differing views. I do not see how this follows. If one is overly biased, then whatever ideology the bigot chooses will be poisoned by the bigotry.

Perhaps I am trying to separate ideology out from all the human weaknesses and failures, for I see one's ideology as the potential positive countering force of all those negative forces.

I too voted Libertarian, in those few races that did not have a Republican running. If I had known Bush did not need my vote, I would have voted Libertarian all the way.

posted by GoldenMean on November 4, 2004 at 10:05 PM | link to this | reply

well, i voted for Bill and Opus for president

and libertarian in all the other races to do my little part to help establish a viable third party. we have mail in ballots in Oregon.

"The failure to live up to one's values and principles is the fatal error of humanity"

this recalls for me my issue with morality, namely, as your statement implies, that values and principals need to be applied to oneself. morality invariably involves other people's behavior and i believe that this focus on others is in and of itself a failure to live up to personal principals. condemnation becomes a "virtue", but a virture that nothing practical can be built upon. That is, condemnation depends upon vocal concurance to create an energy that gives the condemner a little "high", so to speak. many things can be accomplished between people while they are experiencing this mutual high, but once it is allowed to slacken there is very little bond the individuals together as a group or in individual relationships. thus condemnation is an artifical way  of "bringing people together" and little can be built upon it apart from its own momentun, which is the real cause behind most social, moral, and nationalistic movements, the maintaining of the momentum or "high". thus the need in ideology, which is typically a battlement from which people believe they might safely condemn, to twist everything so that it agrees with the ideology, or "feeding the beast". this spin can be outlandish or plainly false but will gain currency for the sake of momentum, and how can a practical approach be taken toward a problem if the real conditions behind the problem, as best they can be known, will perhaps not even be so much as acknowedged? we, meaning all people of all times, put on blinders and thenwonder why we are so easily smacked upside the head. i'm saying that morality, or the focus on others over oneself in matter of personal conduct, is one of the pricipal blinders. thus, in reference to your comment, i don't know what the value is of being a "strong" ideologue. while there are times when the momentum or high of ideology will bolster one in a time when there is a need of action, when it comes to living a life day to day strong ideology is little more than a more determined blindness. all in all ideology depends on avoidence to maintain itself and must be taken as a orm of personal weakness.

posted by rovesciato on November 1, 2004 at 10:43 PM | link to this | reply

Welcome back, Rovesciato

Actually, I was thinking of you when I wrote this post, because you gave me the same impression earlier in one of your posts or comments.

After my dispute with Evangeline (now departed), your "attack" comment is like a friendly nudge. I have never seen you attack anyone, just offer your opinion for better or worse. That is one of the things I admire about you. You are confrontational when needed, but only in a constructive manner. I strive to follow your example.

So, you think conservatives are actually liberal. I can see your point. But let me say that I think that these are the WEAK conservatives, who do not take their philosophy to heart. The only think worse than an ideologue is a WEAK ideologue, on either or any side. This clouds the difference between ideologies and brings out the worst in human behavior. Weakness is, or will be, the downfall of the human race. The failure to live up to one's values and principles is the fatal error of humanity. Is this an endorsement of Nietszche? Perhaps. Where is PG Scott when we need him?

posted by GoldenMean on October 31, 2004 at 8:29 PM | link to this | reply

i have a soft spot for traditional christianity too, ie, Chatholicism

as a bulwark against American Protestants, ie, social conservatives. i left this for inkling ages ago The Bible as we have it was canonized by the Church. If the Church doesn't have the spiritual authority it claims than the basis for including and rejecting certain books is arbitrary, or every bit as human then as if we decided to reorganize them today. If the Church does have the spiritual authority to canonize then the word of God is embodied in the living Church and not fixed on parchment. To use the Bible as an authority against the Church is to use the Word of God against the Word of God. As far as the behavior of the Church, it should be no more difficult to conceive of the authority of God being channeled through dammed flesh than it is that it is to conceive infinite grace forgiving infinite sin or three beings in one being. The abuse of the Church is no justification for abandoning the Church. For a Protestant, however, congregation is only of the flesh. When the behavior of a congregation is poor it should be abandoned. There is a certain amount of liberalism in all Protestantism, which simply means protest. Although many people are born into established Protestant Denominations it remains the basic nature of Protestants not to accept authority except by inclination. One may place oneself into the hands of a congregation and submit to its rules but the whole body of the congregation itself is "following the dictates of its heart" and believes that the authority of the Word of God maintains it. While in human terms it is very different, spiritually there is nothing to separate a single Protestantism of all believers outside the Church and individual believer, or church of one. i may have mentioned this before but if not you might be surprised to hear that i generally look at conservatives in the same way that conservatives look at liberals, ie, fickle, flambouyant, weak (particularly emotionally) self excusing, fuzzy headed, etc. i like the terms brown shirt hippie and flip side liberal. there are several individuals who are conservative that i respect but there are also several liberals and several more that don't fit those descriptions. but i certainly can't read or watch the news and not be reconfirmed in my premise that all (read: most) conservatives are liberals. what is frusturating is that there is a far more direct way to approach the problems of state and nation but most people won't even acknowlede it through the ideological fog . . . sorry to leave you an "attackish" comment after being away so long. that's just what struck me, and my brain's been flat so i've got to go on impulse if i'm gona go at all ...

posted by rovesciato on October 29, 2004 at 1:41 AM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean

That was a very interesting post…very…

I left another comment for you…

posted by justAcarpenter on October 21, 2004 at 8:00 PM | link to this | reply

thanks Mysteria

That is a great article. Thanks for the link. That link would be more useful in my "Armed Citizen" blog, but it is good here as well. The British government's oppression of gun-owners and people who wish to exercise their human right to defend themselves with a gun (just a .22 pistol, for crying out loud) is disgusting. Gun-banning is destroying freedom, and it is just as tyrannical whether it is done by Communist, Nazi, Parliamentary, or Democratic governments.

Gun-banning also ties in with Humanistic ideology, which usually leans toward socialism and pacifism.

posted by GoldenMean on October 19, 2004 at 9:33 PM | link to this | reply

love your brain

sending a link that may interest you

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder9.html

posted by mysteria on October 19, 2004 at 1:26 PM | link to this | reply