Posted on 02/08/2010 11:33:17 AM PST by betty boop
The first time I heard Obama was watching the Democrat National Convention on TV when Kerry was nominated. My husband and I looked at each other and commented that this guy is dangerous.
And your essay explains why.
He speaks "magic words" which draw on the audience's own imaginations well enough to create an illusion of what he stands for, which is of course altogether false when compared with the facts on the ground.
May other politicians have said one thing and done another (e.g. Daschle) which usually catches up with them. But Obama speaks magic words.
And his magic words have a Pied Piper affect on the child-like minds, especially those who have no "real world" experience.
Spooky.
Indeed, the only "upside" to the economic problems (especially the job market) is that some of the children are having to grow up fast, perhaps fast enough to ignore the magic words.
Second realities would be very much like sheep pens except in one respect: the sheep can at least see the pasture. LOLOL!
OR.... calling the sheep in the other pens HERETICS...
not all are looking thru the door of the sheep pen.. but thru the walls at each other.. pointing fingers and bleating.. all manner of bleating slogans..
When it comes to philosophy or philosophers, I’m never very sure what the point is (my failing, surely – not philosophy’s or the philosophers’).
It seems to me that if the ‘Absolute’ (as you put it) is rejected, then nothing is left but meaninglessness (a ‘how’ with no ‘why’) and that is, indeed, precisely the conclusion come to by many. Hence, the securing of “the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity” takes on a narrow and constricted significance, while ‘process’ obtains an enormous importance and the ultimate objective may consist of little more than having a Boeing 757 at one’s beck and call to fly family members cross country, or to eat $100/pound kobe beef with VIPs (and without examining too closely what makes them oh, so very important).
Well put. I think what you’ve stated is the default philosophy of liberals and classified more closely as pragmatists of the Rorty persuasion than classic Idealists.
It sounds like something frozen in time.
But God isn't frozen in time, nor are the dynamics of the universe, the world. So there's no way for me to logically connect the idea of "Absolute" with God or with physical reality....
But whatever it is, the "Absolute" sounds pretty unpleasant to me.
Lacking any precise definition, it could be used by anybody for any purpose.
In any case, I wouldn't use the term "Absolute" to denote the negative of "meaninglessness." That tells me nothing two times.
But I think I get what you're driving at: Absent a common (perhaps the better word is "public'?) moral core to which society at large gives its assent, the disorder of persons and societies increases.
Without that common moral core, "the center will not hold." In which case we should instantly begin the vigil, in expectation of the "slouching beast" coming out of "Babylon"....
RE: your second point — that "process" obtains an enormous importance when "meaning" (in your example, the historical American moral code) is eclipsed — I couldn't agree with you more.
Well, just some stray thoughts....
Thank you so much for your kind words, and for writing, dear YHAOS! It is always such a pleasure to hear from you.
Why Betty, the Absolute if defined correctly is the self-sufficient, self-existent, self-contained, a se, personal, transcendent God of Scriptures.
Idealism will claim a priori an Absolute but at some point will deny that the God of Scripture is the Absolute by making the Universe the Absolute and God merely an actor within the Universe. Thus God and man become coequal and pantheism evolves from it.
In your terminology the “moral code” is the Absolute which explains your affinity for Kant and Hume.
Never, dear betty. ( ^: }
“but I don't know what the "Absolute" is.”
Neither do I (exactly). But, in this instance I take the_conscience to be referring to the Judeo-Christian God and to the cultural fallout inhabiting Western Civilization as a consequence. Whether it be the Christian God, the Greek First Cause (or Uncaused Cause), First Reality, or the historical American moral code (as you so eloquently put it), the people I’ve critiqued with my puny efforts are in rebellion against it (all of it). And, in their frenzied intensity, they seem oblivious to what they are brining down on all our heads (if I could, I would get out of the way and abandon these louts to their fate, but we all know things don’t work that way . . . by design). And yes, surely we must all be aware of the “slouching beast” about to fall upon us. Can we not feel his hot breath on the back of our necks?
Thanks the_conscience for your response. It is very much appreciated. And thank you, dear betty, for your reply. Illuminating, as always.
No one is disputing your underlying thesis - but -0- isn't the engineer. He is an empty vessel, a script (teleprompter) reader for the masses. He has never accomplished a single thing by his own merits during the course of his entire life.
He is so bored & out of place that he has in effect resigned simply due to lack of interest. The Dems are now finding that out to their chagrin. If he's now only going through the motions, imagine what he'll be like after Nov. Hell, he may even resort to being publicly stoned (again).
Good definition, the_Conscience. It's mainly the classical one. The point is the need for us to define terms we use, so everybody's on the same page, so to speak.
But then we have to remember that the Absolute is a description; it is not God Himself.
Thank you so very much for your insightful essay/post!
LOLOL!!! Do you mean we can have a public stoning anytime soon? Wow, that would be great LOL!
Of course that's not what you meant.... You think the prez is a "stoner?" Jeepers, I'd just thought he was an Adderol addict....
In short they are in rebellion against any "ordering principle," but in particular against any that can be understood as ordained by God. They call this "freedom" I gather....
To me, it's just totally insane. Unless one happens to like slouching beasts....
Thank you so very much, dear YHAOS, for your illuminating essay/post!
I think that’s correct . . . if we remember that these DC clowns have no idea who Noah Webster is (although they’ve no doubt heard of him), and his significance in our history, particularly as it concerns the enormous distinction Webster makes in the meaning of ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom.’ His definitions of the two terms are not merely entries in his original dictionary of American English; they are a profound civics lesson. And, while you’re at it, throw in ‘republic’ and ‘commonwealth’ for a little additional edification.
In short they are in rebellion against any "ordering principle," but in particular against any that can be understood as ordained by God. They call this "freedom" I gather....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.