It was startling to hear Bobby Kennedy use such apocalyptic words when describing the evil slowly enveloping us, "This is Armageddon. This is the final battle. We need to win this one."
Not sure if you're aware that Naomi Wolf (of all people!) is writing about God. She wrote a beautiful essay about her nascent faith on her substack back in January that's definitely worth the time to read.
This is indeed a spiritual fight. God is calling many people to gather and fight this evil. Because of the worldwide nature of it, and the powerful people wanting desperately to advance this anti-human agenda, it sure feels like we are confronting the greatest evil in human history.
re 1. I often remind myself (and others...) of Raymond Unger's formulation of this issue:
There are two entirely different world views:
- The spiritual-transcendental view: There is a God, and it is not me.
- The materialist-socialist view: There is no God, and if there was one, it could as well be me.
Here's a quote from "Vom Verlust der Freiheit" (sorry, no translation):
Trotz der Vielzahl philosophischer Weltbilder lassen sich prinzipiell zwei grundverschiedene Positionen oder Gewissheiten ausmachen, von denen aus der Mensch das Sein in der Welt verortet. Zugespitzt und grob vereinfacht, könnte man auch von einer grundsätzlich »spirituell-transzendenten« und einer grundsätzlich »materialistisch-sozialistischen« Weltsicht sprechen. Die transzendente Position geht von folgender Grundannahme aus:
1. Es gibt einen Gott – und ich bin es nicht.
Die sozialistische Sicht ist diametral anders:
2. Es gibt keinen Gott – oder falls doch, könnte es ebenso ich selbst sein.
[…] Spirituell verwurzelte Menschen passen ihr Dasein in einen höheren Sinnkontext ein. Dieser besteht im Wesentlichen daraus das Paradox menschlicher Freiheit vs. Unverfügbarkeit anzuerkennen. Bei diesem Weltmodell ist der Mensch einerseits ein freies und für sein Handeln verantwortliches Wesen – dennoch ist er zugleich in ein gegebenes Schicksal gestellt, das sich seinem Machtbereich entzieht. Kurz gesagt: Etwas ist größer. Einem Menschen mit diesem Weltbild ist bewusst, dass ihm wesentliche Dinge unverfügbar bleiben. Der Widerspruch, einerseits handeln zu müssen und andererseits dennoch die begrenzte Wirkmächtigkeit des eigenen Handels anzuerkennen, erfordert Demut und Reife. Viele Philosophen haben sich an diesem Dilemma abgearbeitet. Immerhin gilt es, bei jedem der mannigfaltigen Alltagsprobleme unterscheiden zu können, was verfügbar ist und was nicht. Das sogenannte »Gelassenheitsgebet« bringt die Schwierigkeit des menschlichen Handelns auf den Punkt:
»Gott, gib mir die Gelassenheit, Dinge hinzunehmen, die ich nicht ändern kann, den Mut, Dinge zu ändern, die ich ändern kann, und die Weisheit, das eine vom anderen zu unterscheiden.«
The point about freedom vs statism (point 13) is the most complicated to unpack in the current political environment. There are strong cases both for "the current crisis is due to individualism run rampant" and "the current crisis is due to an unprecedented desire for greater social control". You can feel the tension between these premises in the context of debate on the political right about the merits of Hungary and Orban, or on the left in the context of the oscillations between seeing banning media (especially older books) as alternatively virtuous or contemptible.
In my mind this is resolved by concluding that freedom is always the highest good, but it becomes the highest evil in a country where citizens have imperfectly formed inner virtue and lack any awareness of transcendent values -- Adams remark about the Constitution being "inadequate for the governance" of any other people comes to mind. But since we now no longer have the correct sort of people to govern, this becomes an unsolvable paradox. Both freedom and statism are equally dangerous, and can become pathological both at the same time in ways that reinforce one another's pathologies.
Indeed, appreciate the comment. In this case my comment was provoked by a discussion about school choice where my opponent remarked that libertarianism was anti-Christian because it was about selfishness... and that appeared to be as seriously as he had considered the matter. Made me appreciate efforts like Tuttle Twins which, even when I don't always agree with them, make efforts to explain (to children) why freedom results in better outcomes for everyone, which blunts the whole "selfishness" objection.
"Libertarian", but I bet they'll also accuse Christians of being excessively authoritarian in the very next sentence.
I'm suddenly reminded of this hit piece against Elon Musk yesterday by Robert Reich: "Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision for an uncontrolled internet. That's also the dream of every dictator, strongman, and demagogue."
It's Minitrue humiliation-propaganda that doesn't even pretend to satisfy the law of non-contradiction. Every word or phrase reduces to the idea that good outcomes retroactively define all procedural terms. Rough translation: "They're authoritarians because they want everyone to have liberty, and liberty is an authoritarian value. The only way to preserve democracy is unquestioning obedience to state authority" etc
It's designed to be confusing and circular, a piece of armor so perfectly convex that any arrow will always bounce off. It breaks language so that you can't use it for arguments against opposing points of view.
Can you explain this a bit more? I hear this all the time. I have a 10 yr old grandson whom I’ve noticed just in the
last year that he has all these almost political thoughts that aren’t conservative by any means. I know he isn’t getting it from his parents so there’s only one other place he’s getting it from, school. He even told me that all our problems are because of Putin! I’m dismayed because really why does he have to be concerned with all the stuff going on in this world? Can he just live in some innocence a little longer?
Ooof, I thought I had a response to you that was going to revolve around a cultural environment that naturally pushes people into progressive emotionalism... until you mentioned Putin, because that is a very specific sort of thing that almost certainly means he has imbibed propaganda from somewhere. I know some schools play these "TV news" programs every day that are supposed to make kids "informed about world events"... and if watching CNN-for-children leaves you thinking better instead of thinking worse. Something like that would be my first guess, but just a guess.
But I do also think the cultural environment encourages emotional, sound-bite thinking, and generally emotional sound-bite thinking is good for progressivism. Better thinking requires you to reach a "second level" that requires deeper mental analysis. The first example that comes to mind is something like price controls. "Oh no, people are spending too much on food/gasoline/rent, we should cap the price!" If you know nothing about economics, at first thought that sounds like it would work. It's easy to deride anyone who opposes the idea of being uncaring or trying to protect the rich or something, so you get that nice emotional shot that is also going to discourage you from thinking any deeper. But of course if you DO manage to think deeper, we know that what immediately follows price controls is shortages, and/or price explosions in related goods, and the ending situation is worse than the beginning. But that's a "second-tier" level of understanding. In a sound-bite, emotional world, many people never get past first-tier.
It was startling to hear Bobby Kennedy use such apocalyptic words when describing the evil slowly enveloping us, "This is Armageddon. This is the final battle. We need to win this one."
Not sure if you're aware that Naomi Wolf (of all people!) is writing about God. She wrote a beautiful essay about her nascent faith on her substack back in January that's definitely worth the time to read.
This is indeed a spiritual fight. God is calling many people to gather and fight this evil. Because of the worldwide nature of it, and the powerful people wanting desperately to advance this anti-human agenda, it sure feels like we are confronting the greatest evil in human history.
Of course you hesitate to make such dramatic claims but it does feel like that. I will have to go lookup the Wolf piece.
naomiwolf.substack.com/p/is-it-time-for-intellectuals-to-talk?s=r
Again this is excellent! How ‘green’ is it to cover our beautiful land with all this ugly technology?
re 1. I often remind myself (and others...) of Raymond Unger's formulation of this issue:
There are two entirely different world views:
- The spiritual-transcendental view: There is a God, and it is not me.
- The materialist-socialist view: There is no God, and if there was one, it could as well be me.
Here's a quote from "Vom Verlust der Freiheit" (sorry, no translation):
Trotz der Vielzahl philosophischer Weltbilder lassen sich prinzipiell zwei grundverschiedene Positionen oder Gewissheiten ausmachen, von denen aus der Mensch das Sein in der Welt verortet. Zugespitzt und grob vereinfacht, könnte man auch von einer grundsätzlich »spirituell-transzendenten« und einer grundsätzlich »materialistisch-sozialistischen« Weltsicht sprechen. Die transzendente Position geht von folgender Grundannahme aus:
1. Es gibt einen Gott – und ich bin es nicht.
Die sozialistische Sicht ist diametral anders:
2. Es gibt keinen Gott – oder falls doch, könnte es ebenso ich selbst sein.
[…] Spirituell verwurzelte Menschen passen ihr Dasein in einen höheren Sinnkontext ein. Dieser besteht im Wesentlichen daraus das Paradox menschlicher Freiheit vs. Unverfügbarkeit anzuerkennen. Bei diesem Weltmodell ist der Mensch einerseits ein freies und für sein Handeln verantwortliches Wesen – dennoch ist er zugleich in ein gegebenes Schicksal gestellt, das sich seinem Machtbereich entzieht. Kurz gesagt: Etwas ist größer. Einem Menschen mit diesem Weltbild ist bewusst, dass ihm wesentliche Dinge unverfügbar bleiben. Der Widerspruch, einerseits handeln zu müssen und andererseits dennoch die begrenzte Wirkmächtigkeit des eigenen Handels anzuerkennen, erfordert Demut und Reife. Viele Philosophen haben sich an diesem Dilemma abgearbeitet. Immerhin gilt es, bei jedem der mannigfaltigen Alltagsprobleme unterscheiden zu können, was verfügbar ist und was nicht. Das sogenannte »Gelassenheitsgebet« bringt die Schwierigkeit des menschlichen Handelns auf den Punkt:
»Gott, gib mir die Gelassenheit, Dinge hinzunehmen, die ich nicht ändern kann, den Mut, Dinge zu ändern, die ich ändern kann, und die Weisheit, das eine vom anderen zu unterscheiden.«
The point about freedom vs statism (point 13) is the most complicated to unpack in the current political environment. There are strong cases both for "the current crisis is due to individualism run rampant" and "the current crisis is due to an unprecedented desire for greater social control". You can feel the tension between these premises in the context of debate on the political right about the merits of Hungary and Orban, or on the left in the context of the oscillations between seeing banning media (especially older books) as alternatively virtuous or contemptible.
In my mind this is resolved by concluding that freedom is always the highest good, but it becomes the highest evil in a country where citizens have imperfectly formed inner virtue and lack any awareness of transcendent values -- Adams remark about the Constitution being "inadequate for the governance" of any other people comes to mind. But since we now no longer have the correct sort of people to govern, this becomes an unsolvable paradox. Both freedom and statism are equally dangerous, and can become pathological both at the same time in ways that reinforce one another's pathologies.
Indeed, appreciate the comment. In this case my comment was provoked by a discussion about school choice where my opponent remarked that libertarianism was anti-Christian because it was about selfishness... and that appeared to be as seriously as he had considered the matter. Made me appreciate efforts like Tuttle Twins which, even when I don't always agree with them, make efforts to explain (to children) why freedom results in better outcomes for everyone, which blunts the whole "selfishness" objection.
"Libertarian", but I bet they'll also accuse Christians of being excessively authoritarian in the very next sentence.
I'm suddenly reminded of this hit piece against Elon Musk yesterday by Robert Reich: "Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision for an uncontrolled internet. That's also the dream of every dictator, strongman, and demagogue."
It's Minitrue humiliation-propaganda that doesn't even pretend to satisfy the law of non-contradiction. Every word or phrase reduces to the idea that good outcomes retroactively define all procedural terms. Rough translation: "They're authoritarians because they want everyone to have liberty, and liberty is an authoritarian value. The only way to preserve democracy is unquestioning obedience to state authority" etc
It's designed to be confusing and circular, a piece of armor so perfectly convex that any arrow will always bounce off. It breaks language so that you can't use it for arguments against opposing points of view.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1513851730034925574
Can you explain this a bit more? I hear this all the time. I have a 10 yr old grandson whom I’ve noticed just in the
last year that he has all these almost political thoughts that aren’t conservative by any means. I know he isn’t getting it from his parents so there’s only one other place he’s getting it from, school. He even told me that all our problems are because of Putin! I’m dismayed because really why does he have to be concerned with all the stuff going on in this world? Can he just live in some innocence a little longer?
Ooof, I thought I had a response to you that was going to revolve around a cultural environment that naturally pushes people into progressive emotionalism... until you mentioned Putin, because that is a very specific sort of thing that almost certainly means he has imbibed propaganda from somewhere. I know some schools play these "TV news" programs every day that are supposed to make kids "informed about world events"... and if watching CNN-for-children leaves you thinking better instead of thinking worse. Something like that would be my first guess, but just a guess.
But I do also think the cultural environment encourages emotional, sound-bite thinking, and generally emotional sound-bite thinking is good for progressivism. Better thinking requires you to reach a "second level" that requires deeper mental analysis. The first example that comes to mind is something like price controls. "Oh no, people are spending too much on food/gasoline/rent, we should cap the price!" If you know nothing about economics, at first thought that sounds like it would work. It's easy to deride anyone who opposes the idea of being uncaring or trying to protect the rich or something, so you get that nice emotional shot that is also going to discourage you from thinking any deeper. But of course if you DO manage to think deeper, we know that what immediately follows price controls is shortages, and/or price explosions in related goods, and the ending situation is worse than the beginning. But that's a "second-tier" level of understanding. In a sound-bite, emotional world, many people never get past first-tier.
I’m referring to the ‘selfishness’ argument.