Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Aug 10 18:47:50 2004
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:47:50 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: ek
Subject: Re: your mail
Status: O
Content-Length: 1094
Lines: 27
I don't see it as that sensible an issue for him. If he wants small
government, freedom etc. he's not going to get it with a Euro-style
attitude toward religion. If you want final authority in the hands of
someone who isn't the government you need God, and if you want to avoid
having government set itself up as providence-on-earth you need the idea
of divine providence.
He should be more worried by the Secular Left than by the Religious
Right, which is an optical illusion anyway -- it's basically just people
who are still where most people were 40 years ago because they didn't
sign on to the 60s. What issues do they have that most people wouldn't
have agreed to back then? I think it's odd to view them and not the Left
as a radical threat to freedom.
Jim
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:31:01PM -0700, ek wrote:
> I understand Rob's concern, a bit--i think Bush pushes
> that too much, the religious thing...but at least
> there is a chance to argue with someone who says what
> they espouse...as opposed to K who --well, what does
> he think?
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Aug 13 10:09:29 2004
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:09:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance
Status: O
Content-Length: 1969
Lines: 37
Hello,
When several different things all imply each other it can be difficult
to say which is most basic. I find for my own part that when we're
talking about the most basic issues simple conceptual explanations
explain things most simply and comprehensively. For example, people
always have things that they value. How does it happen that today it has
come to seem obvious that things as abstract and empty as freedom and
equality are supreme values to which all else must give way? There are
always people with every conceivable motive, including the drive to
degradation. How does it happen that in our time the drive to
degradation is able to present itself as truer and more in accord with
the way things are than anything else -- and therefore, weirdly, as good
and morally compulsory?
To my mind it's because something has gone radically wrong with the way
we sort out impulses and goals and make sense of them and declare some
good and others bad. In other words, it's because of a basic problem in
the most general concepts of what things there are and how we know about
them and attribute meaning to them. If you assume that the problem is
that we've fallen into the Cartesian abyss -- that we're only willing to
accept the reality of things that are immediately and obviously present
to our consciousness -- then as l suggests all the rest of it falls
into place. What's real is what we can see, what's compelling is desire,
reason is formal logic, and life becomes a matter of getting what we
want simply because we want it. But then our integrity demands debunking
and throwing off transcendent and therefore vague and false and external
conceptions of what we should do. The consequence is that moral
degradation becomes a sort of discipline through which we hope to break
the chains of unreality and attain a sort of personal godhood. Sade
becomes the new Christ showing the way to salvation and theosis.
jk
----
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Aug 14 09:09:34 2004
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:09:34 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: pg
Cc: la
Subject: Re: NJ Governor & Homosexuality
Status: O
Content-Length: 1058
Lines: 25
l's comment on how pleased Gov McG was with himself is an
interesting one. I suppose it might be a combination of:
1. The drama of himself as freedom fighter and vindicator of the future,
in the imagined teeth of the oppressor and to the real applause of
everyone he has to take into account. Maybe he's looking forward to
helping choose the actor who'll play him in the movie.
2. A psychopathic personality that creates its own self-justifying
reality and is used to maneuering others into buying into it. That seems
common among politicians. A tipoff here as in the case of Bp. Robinson
is success in inducing his wife to give full support to his psychodrama.
3. Homosexual fondness for transgression and play-acting in weird
combinations.
The problem of the homosexual mafia is a big one. The pederasty scandal
in the Catholic Church can't be understood apart from the homintern and
(to mention something of which I have personal knowledge) the Episcopal
Diocese of Long Island is run by a homosexual mafia.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Aug 14 11:40:07 2004
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:40:07 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: k
Subject: Re: NJ Governor & Homosexuality
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 875
Lines: 55
I dunno. I saw some of the press conference and it didn't seem like
simple relief at an end to deceit etc. It was more like a career change
and opportunity to say who he was that he was pleased with. How all this
gets spun after a while depends on future rhetorical needs. The obvious
long-term line is if you're a closet queer in public life who doesn't
put on a homophobic front but is on the side of the angels you're an
undercover operative working within the system to the extent you aren't
simply a victim. In the end it'll probably be enough that when outed you
say "yes this is what I am -- a Gay American."
jk
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:55:44AM -0400, k wrote:
> I didn't see the clip, but would simple relief have explained
> McGreevey's emotional display? He no longer has to lie, sneak or worry
> about getting caught.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 16 08:49:29 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:49:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance, at FrontPageMag
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1100
Lines: 125
The discussion raises some very interesting issues. One way to look at
them is to say that pre axial-age types lived in a world that was all of
a piece, and the tradition of the tribe or city, which implicitly
included lots of spiritual and ethical values, said just what that
single-piece world was like. But then cosmopolitan civilization,
technological advances, written records etc. made it easier to identify
separately the apparently mechanical, technological and amoral aspects
of the world and see that they formed a system that had to be taken very
seriously. Once that had happened if the world were still viewed as all
of a piece then that amoral system of things would determine its nature
and it would become something like what Democritus or for that matter a
modern atheist or ancient Chinese legalist believed in. In order for the
world to remain human there had to be consciousness that it has
supremely important aspects that transcend the things that we can
separately identify and control. I don't see what's happened to change
that.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 16 13:37:49 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:37:49 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance, at FrontPageMag
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 284
Lines: 184
I don't know that it's original. All I'm saying is that the notion of
transcendence result from the differentiation of what is originally felt
as a unity and the human necessity of retaining the whole of what was
contained in that unity.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 16 14:43:09 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:43:09 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance, at FrontPageMag
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 437
Lines: 236
That's true that I'm viewing it more as a general social process than a
great man innovation.
jk
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:59:51PM -0400, la wrote:
>
> Yes, you're saying that because of increasing differentiation, unity
> could no longer be found in the cosmos and the things of the cosmos, but
> had to be found in a principle of unity that transcended the cosmos and
> gave it its order.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 16 16:46:29 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:46:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: liberalism as the mutual acceptance of non-being
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 625
Lines: 20
The most positive thing the affirmed self could be is the evangelizing
hedonistic self, the self that does what it wants within the limits of
PC equality and wants others to do the same.
jk
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:15:37PM -0400, la wrote:
> If everyone gets along with everyone, and we all accept each other and believe we're equal and so on, then what is the self that is being accepted? It's an abstraction, a nullity. It is the mere idea of selfhood with no content. This is what modern people, good citiziens of advanced liberal society, have done ... to themselves.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 16 19:06:28 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:06:28 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christianity and the Enlightenment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 404
Lines: 54
I think the Enlightenment and Romanticism are mostly two sides of the
same thing which is the decline of a unified relationship to God and
reason. The first overemphasized the head and the second the heart, both
at the expense of the whole man.
I would suppose the Enlightenment is rooted in Christianity because
after all it arose in a Christian setting.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Aug 17 12:07:00 2004
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:07:00 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christianity and the Enlightenment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 368
Lines: 85
Depends on what you mean by "rooted in." I think the Christian
background is essential to the Enlightenment. The freedom and dignity of
man, and the rationality and order of the universe, are Christian themes
and also basic to Enlightenment ideals. And yes I think that America is
too much attached to the Enlightenment.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Aug 19 08:39:38 2004
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:39:38 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christianity and the Enlightenment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 636
Lines: 119
I don't understand 1. As to 2, I'd agree the Enlightenment is rooted in
a tendency toward this-worldliness and man the measure. It has lots of
roots. My original point was that it wouldn't have been anything like
what it was without the Christian background. And as to 3, I'd say the
Pope puts far too much effort into bridgebuilding and saying everything
is compatible with everything else. I don't think his comments on these
issues are sensible. See my short piece at FrontPage on "The Pope's Left
Turn on Immigration." As to what can be done, the arguments can be made
and publicized.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Aug 21 08:39:44 2004
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:39:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christianity and the Enlightenment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 804
Lines: 151
A lot of people have to do a lot of different things: live better lives
themselves, attach themselves to what's good and support it, reject
what's bad and complain about it. I think some things have to change in
the way life's organized. For example, education has to be decentralized
and deprofessionalized. More homeschooling, more independent schools,
more relilgious schools. Ditto for cultural life generally. Somehow
people have to unhook from mass entertainment for example. Can't think
of a web-link that's particularly helpful.
jk
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:52:58PM -0400, db wrote:
> Mr. Kalb,
>
> In your opinion, what will it take to bring about a better culture? Can you give me a web-link to an approach you particularly like?
>
> Thank you
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Aug 22 11:44:05 2004
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:44:05 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleoconservatism@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [paleoconservatism] An indication of how bad things are
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 407
Lines: 40
I really don't understand staying home as a strategy. If you want to
make a statement it seems to me you should say something as articulate
as possible. Staying home is inscrutable. If you want to make a
statement, and trying to help swell say Peroutka's or Tancredo's vote to
the point it becomes visible isn't good enough, why not go write in
"Donald Duck"?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Aug 22 15:20:23 2004
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:20:23 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleoconservatism@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [paleoconservatism] An indication of how bad things are
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1511
Lines: 60
I made a suggestion, a protest vote either for whoever comes closest to
your views or for a cartoon character or equivalent. I can understand
not voting because you think it's useless or because on principle you
don't want to go along with something you think is fundamentally
fraudulent. I can't understand not voting as a strategy, which is the
idea that seemed in play.
The "strategic" theory looks like a variant of the "What if they gave an
election and nobody came" theory. If 10%, 5%, 1%, or .001% fewer people
vote then the system and those who run it will lose legitimacy for lack
of popular support and that will open up opportunities for other social
and political forms and initiatives. But why wouldn't casting a
nonfunctional but expressive vote be better than silence, which normally
implies consent?
Suppose an additional 10%, 5%, 1%, or .001% of the voters (a) didn't
vote, (b) voted for "extremist" minor party candidates, or (c) voted for
Vercingetorix, and their numbers kept growing election after election,
which would be more likely to call things in question and open up the
political discussion in a way beneficial to paleos? I don't think (a) is
the answer. For my own part I prefer (b). Even (c) is better than (a)
though.
Of course, maybe it's all useless. In the most obvious sense an
individual vote certainly is useless. But if so then not voting still is
not a *strategy.*
jk
> OK, Jim. What, then, do you think paleos should do?
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 23 20:51:44 2004
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:51:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: gd
Subject: Re: quick question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 431
Lines: 36
I don't see anything inconsistent. Free markets work best if property
rights are clearly defined. If it's easy to bring unpredictable law
suits for unpredictable amounts of money then property rights aren't
clearly defined. People who like free markets don't like that. The
ability of attorneys to get courts to award damages is part of the
action of the state rather than the market.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Aug 24 06:10:23 2004
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:10:23 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: gd
Subject: Re: quick question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2554
Lines: 113
I think your point in effect is that property rights in a particular
situation aren't self-defining, and in the situation that is the subject
of a law suit a variety of claims might be made that would have to be
gone into before anyone can say who should get what -- in other words,
what the "property rights" of the parties are.
The point raises the issue of how property rights should be defined. The
free market claim is that to the extent situations that are legally
complex and unpredictable become commonplace the free market falls
apart. Free markets depend on ordinary participants being able to know
without going through an uncertain procedure what property they have and
what property other people have. Otherwise they won't know what they're
giving up and what they're getting in a transaction. Also, the more
claims and the larger and more subjective and imaginative claims there
are that can be made in a lawsuit the more the way to improve your
economic position will be to get a government agency (e.g., a court) to
decide things your way rather than offer things on the market that other
people think worth acquiring.
So to the extent someone wants the market rather than government
agencies to decide economic results he'll want property rights defined
as much as possible so they're easily and consistently determinable in
advance and don't allow for a lot of disputes that couldn't have been
forseen and have wildly unpredictable outcomes. So it's principled to
say "I like the free market" and also to say "the law should be changed
to get rid of frivolous lawsuits and make the outcome of lawsuits more
predictable."
My impression is that that argument is being made in connection with
various schemes of tort reform although I haven't paid particular
attention and can't argue the specifics. I suppose an objection is that
"property" ought to include some notion of "just claim," and it's hard
to state clearly in advance all the just claims that might be made and
just how big they can be. The counter to that objection is that to the
extent "property" can't be determined in advance or on formalistic
grounds but includes evolving standards and an open-ended notion of
substantive justice it's not property any more. It's a bunch of claims
that have to be decided by government agencies on general grounds. I'm
sure there are counters to that counter and yet further counters ad
infinitum, not to mention disputes as to how any of this is to be
applied to concrete circumstances.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Aug 24 06:14:07 2004
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:14:07 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: hgc
Subject: Re: quick question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 216
Lines: 26
G seemed to be asking about a pure question of principle so I
assumed an idealized actor in my answer. I agree of course that on
occasion people (including lawyers and politicians) aren't completely
principled.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Aug 24 07:40:06 2004
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:40:06 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: hgc
Subject: Re: quick question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 510
Lines: 229
In this connection, a principled argument for statutory changes
restricting tort claims would be that to the extent tort law as applied
by the courts becomes open-ended and unpredictable the tort system
becomes a system for economic administration and legal and economic
reform. Even assuming those things are needed the courts probably aren't
well-suited to carry them out, among other reasons because they are so
focused on particular facts of particular cases.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Aug 25 07:28:32 2004
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:28:32 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: gd
Subject: Re: quick question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1537
Lines: 44
Hi,
Concepts like "negligence," "defect," "strict liability," "pain and
suffering," "punitive damages" etc. go way back, as you say. That
doesn't mean the substance and effect of how they're applied is at all
the same. Lawyers and courts always present whatever they do as the same
thing that's always been done. A moderate change in definition or in the
manner of interpreting or drawing conclusions from facts can transform
things quite radically though.
For example, what's a "defect"? Failure to make the thing in accordance
with the manufacturer's own specifications? Failure to make it in
accordance with industry standards? Failure to make it in accordance
with what the jury believes in hindsight industry standards should have
been? Making it in a way that contributed to the accident when it might
have been made otherwise? Also, how do you compensate for pain and
suffering? Give the guy enough money so he's just as well off as he
would have been if the accident hadn't happened? If that were the
standard then the whole of our national income would have to go many
times over to people who had accidents. But if making the guy whole
can't possibly be the standard what is?
The answers to these questions usually aren't obvious. Whether changes
are needed to make the system as it now exists more just or better from
some standpoint of policy or fundamental principle of course involves
lots of issues that have to be discussed (by people who know more about
them than I do).
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Aug 25 07:54:35 2004
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:54:35 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: gd
Subject: Re: More on frivolous law suits
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1281
Lines: 34
I agree that an argument that big companies shouldn't pay consumers for
personal injuries because it's important for big companies to keep their
money and not so important for injured consumers to get any money would
be a bad argument. The discussion ought to turn on other issues, e.g.,
1. If you're in business you ought to exercise due care and if you don't
and someone gets hurt you ought to compensate.
2. Standards of "due care" etc. ought to be reasonably knowable and
practicable.
3. Concerns about liability shouldn't squelch useful activities or make
them overly expensive (whatever "overly" is taken to mean).
4. Users of products are also responsible for acting reasonably.
5. It's bad if people look at an opportunity to sue someone with deep
pockets as a lucky chance to make some money.
These issues and others one could mention point in a variety of
directions. I don't think putting the issue as a conflict between
personal and property rights really deals with them. You could say it's
all about property rights because after all the argument is over who
ends up with some money. Or you can say it's all about personal rights
because even the biggest company in the end is just a standin for
particular people -- beneficiaries of pension plans or whatever.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Aug 30 10:07:11 2004
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:07:11 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: hgc
Subject: Re: How a smear campaign works
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3973
Lines: 181
The article H posts is interesting from several perspectives. To my
mind it illustrates the difficulty of separating truth from fiction when
political discourse has become corrupt. I agree with H that it's
important to think about what can be done to keep political discussion
closer to the issues and debunk smears, distortions, spin etc. when
neutrality is difficult to achieve and organized efforts to purify
discussion can themselves be spun, manipulated, hijacked etc. and always
have built-in biases of some sort anyway. For one thing, if social
inequality is a worry every organized effort to purify things is going
to involve social inequality since those who dominate the effort will
always in fact (and even by definition) be well-placed people.
It seems to me that the existence of the web makes it more possible than
in the past to accumulate, check, compare, collate etc. information
relevant to something like the swiftboats business, all at a low cost
with few barriers to entry. Of course, those conditions also make it
easier to spread misinformation, organize provocations and counter
efforts, and generally muddy the waters. Then of course there's the
problem of getting the public at large to notice whatever the outcome of
the discussions of those particularly interested in a matter may be. The
latter will always involve powerful social institutions and will be
subject to spin, distortion, etc.
I say the article illustrates the difficulties of the situation because
the article itself displays some of the earmarks of a smear. To say that
is not to say anything about the ultimate facts of the matter. However,
1. As a practical matter, the piece is aimed at Bush. If the Boston
Globe had simply wished to tell their readers how smears work they could
have picked a situation not associated with a candidate who (I presume)
they don't like. It looks like an indirect attack that like push polling
is dressed up as something else.
2. It involves vague allegations ("We had no idea who made the phone
calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made.") made by a
political opponent that are impossible for anyone to evaluate or check.
3. As H points out, "What is more important, is that the smear
appeal to well known prejudices or inclinations of belief of some group
to which it is aimed." It's no secret that lots of people hate and fear
Southerners, racists and fundamentalists, not to mention Bush himself.
The piece ties all those things together in a neat package. One data
point on the state of American prejudices is provided by an analysis of
American National Election Study survey data suggesting that 25% of the
white electorate hates fundies as much as the most antisemitic 1% hates
Jews. (See the section on "The anti-fundamentalist voter" in the Public
Interest piece at
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article1.html)
The proportion is presumably much higher among the readership of the
Boston Globe. A tendency at the Globe to tie opposition to Kerry and
support for Bush to "redneck losers" is suggested by a recent Oliphant
cartoon:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/oliphant8-16.gif
[My impression notwithstanding Oliphant is that the antiKerry swiftboats
group includes most of Kerry's fellow and commanding officers and a
large proportion of the men among whom Kerry served. It's not true that
it consists of a few losers who speak like crackers and sit around
drinking beer in the cellar of an American Legion post. Does anyone know
to the contrary?]
jk
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:14:32PM -0400, hgc wrote:
> Have a look at the following article from the Boston Globe which will
> perhaps provide a clearer idea of how a smear campaign works:
>
> The anatomy of a smear campaign
> By Richard H. Davis, 3/21/2004
>
> http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03
> /21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Sep 8 08:29:41 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:29:41 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christian guilt on ethnic preference
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 263
Lines: 56
That's not sensible though. Charity is never compulsory and there are
always limits to it. Otherwise life couldn't go on. One might as well
say "if soandso wants to move into my house, who am I to tell him he
can't."
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Sep 12 16:54:04 2004
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:54:04 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: sd
Subject: Re: Your help needed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2699
Lines: 143
Most of the text seems mostly true, certainly more true than official
modern Western doctrine about sexual equality. On the other hand there
are always contradictions and complications in dealing with women. I
think the way the ideas are expressed is too inflammatory under present
circumstances. What one says about women and the relation between the
sexes always has to be understood in a somewhat non-literal fashion but
people aren't willing to do that today.
It's true women mostly want a man who is a good provider, and they like
to look up to their man and admire him. They are notoriously unwilling
to marry down, for example. Even feminists recognize that a woman likes
to admire her man, although they don't approve. Virginia Woolf commented
for example "Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses
possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man
at twice its natural size."
Also, women notoriously like ornamental presents. I think it's true they
are more likely than men to value material luxuries. Also that for a man
to marry connects him to the material world because he must please his
wife. And once in the material world there are many complications.
On the other hand, there's no universal rule for women or for dealing
with them. Many women don't in fact admire their husbands and many of
them today want careers of their own and not lots of children. It seems
to me they're less likely to be happy for that but there it is. Also,
quite apart from current attitudes, women do vary and some are more one
way and some more another. So what's said has to be understood in a
somewhat poetic way but people today are mindlessly literal-minded on
these issues and in fact interpret things in the most unfavorable way
possible.
The big issue in this text is the treatment of male aggression. I think
women mostly like to be presented with a situation they can respond to.
The response can be rebellion though. Also, they don't like every
situation they're presented with and they don't like every man doing the
presenting. They like men to be assertive and move things along except
when they don't. They don't want men to take "no" for an answer except
when they do. And they often change their mind. Except when they don't
mean the change seriously.
At present it's mostly impossible to discuss the issues. So to discuss
them at all I think language used in the past has to be modified. For
example, to say women like expert rapists is not literally true but at
one time it might have been a useful way to make a point. I don't think
that's so today.
I don't know if any of these comments help.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 14 21:21:15 2004
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:21:15 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: anti-depressants and suicide
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 925
Lines: 21
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:57:53PM -0400, la wrote:
> The story in the news today about the use of anti-depressants by
> children being linked to suicide would seem to express your analysis of
> liberalism: the macro- and micro-management of human life by
> technologists leading to ... the extinction of the human.
Yeah. People have no notion how complex the things are that they're
dealing with.
I got sucked into this Rathergate stuff by the way, because it seemed so
weird. It's really my impression that the Democrats have gone insane.
Why do they think this Natl Guard stuff is the issue they should press?
The CBS memos were evidently coordinated with the new Dem ad campaign.
Is that why Rather ignored glaring problems, evidently shopped around
for an expert who'd say something about them is OK, and now seems so
determined to go down with them? Is insanity contagious?
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Sep 15 08:57:13 2004
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:57:13 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Democrats' insanity
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1507
Lines: 39
Rathergate is beyond interesting. You have this big prestigious
super-established organization, a major American institution, that
exists by and for public attention and stakes everything it has on its
reputation for independence, reliability and professionalism, giving
enormous publicity to obvious fakes, insisting it just knows they're
genuine, challenging critics to prove the contrary, and sticking with
the story day after day even when its colleagues and ideological allies
have turned on it. Isn't there some way they could cut their losses? Why
commit an act of revolutionary suicide when it doesn't even help your
own side? It seems obvious they pushed the story on the air to provide
support for the new Dem ad campaign about old campaign fliers and
whatnot. How much is this stuff doing to help that campaign?
> > It's really my impression that the Democrats have gone
> > insane.
> Welcome to the club. People have been noting this and been
> increasingly amazed by it (and in my case appalled by it) for the last
> couple of years.
As you've suggested when otherwise normal people consistently act in
bizarre and utterly irrational ways it shows something has gone wrong
with the basic concepts by which they understand things. It does seem
that even the most institutional and mainstream sectors of the left are
becoming unable to connect with reality in the most routine ways. That's
a catastrophe, because the left is most of our public life.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Sep 15 10:48:47 2004
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:48:47 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Democrats' insanity
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2641
Lines: 53
> So, what's your bottom line on this? Is the growing inability of the
> left to connect with reality something to fear, because it spells the
> breakdown of society as a whole? Or is it something to welcome, since
> it represents the breakdown of liberalism?
My hopeful analysis is mostly hopeful in the sense that it recognizes
that evil and error destroy themselves and in the end God wins. That
process might involve catastrophe though. The simplest and clearest
analysis is that it probably will. Naturally I hope that things don't go
so far. If my neighbors and relatives start drinking methanol because
they're convinced it's good for their health I can predict they'll go
blind and crazy if they keep at it but that doesn't mean I'm happy when
it happens. A simple and clear analysis leaves out things, and some of
those things may moderate the situation so there's a continous
reconfiguration that leads to a better direction without too many bumps.
Or maybe there won't be a real catastrophe, just entropy and increasing
dysfunction and corruption until something new and more hopeful is gets
started. I'd prefer that to something more apocalyptic.
The thing that worries me is liberal society has such a strong tendency
toward universality, rationalization, and insistence on formal public
standards and procedures. It enforces those things throughout social
life so other institutions like family, religion, community networks and
general cultural standards become much less functional. Common sense
("ingrained social stereotypes") gets uprooted on principle. That means
there's less to fall back on and less to cushion bumps and provide a
basis for rebuilding if liberal institutions go haywire. So you might
end up with something like a post-Soviet situation, maybe worse because
the effects of liberalism seem to be more pervasive and fine-grained
than those of state socialism.
> But those questions introduce a further concern, which hadn't occurred
> to me before but which is present in your comments: liberalism is so
> instrinsic to our civilization that if liberalism breaks down, the
> civilization must break down with it. From this angle, there is no
> hopeful scenario. Either liberalism survives, and so destroys our
> civilization. Or liberalism breaks down now, and breaks up our
> civilization with it.
Yes, that's the threat. I don't think we can know in advance just how
bad things will get. It seems that the "in the end, reasonable men will
prevail" theory may not apply. We just have to do the best we can and
hope for the best. Not all threats are realized.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Sep 15 10:56:08 2004
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:56:08 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: Democrats' insanity
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 573
Lines: 100
Dunno. The issue's already prominent and continued stonewalling won't
make it less prominent. You don't have to confess to something before a
criminal investigation gets started. Involvment in blatant public
criminality should be enough.
Conceivably Rather might be doing this to protect his source? If he said
"yeah, they're bogus" there'd be pressure to say who gave him the docs
and "journalists need to protect their sources" might not be an
impressive argument when you're saying your source committed fraud
against you.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Sep 15 11:00:44 2004
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:00:44 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: Democrats' insanity
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 451
Lines: 96
That's hard though. Liberalism reduces the number of things you're
allowed to take into consideration, if you go outside the limits of
liberalism in forming conclusions you're an ignorant and disgustingly
evil person, and it emphasizes "expertise" (institutional consensus)
over what is obviously the case. That makes it terribly difficult to
break out of liberalism and facilitates collective delusion.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Sep 16 09:53:36 2004
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:53:36 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Orin: KAMIKAZE KERRY RIDES ALONG WITH LOSER DAN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 785
Lines: 67
The Dems apparently have a new ad on W's military service coincidentally
rolled out shortly after the 60 min TANG episode last week. It
apparently included the disclosure that a campaign leaflet from his
first (unsuccessful) congressional campaign said he had served in TANG
and the Air Force, and that was supposed to be a big lie because he was
in TANG and that's not the Air Force.
It appears from some other document posted on Drudge that in fact he did
technically serve in the Air Force for 120 days in the course of his
training. Putting that aside, the fact that the Dems were rolling out
something like that leaflet as an issue to push at this point is the
final thing that drove home for me the fact they're out of their minds.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Sep 16 15:59:35 2004
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:59:35 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fortunate Son
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 590
Lines: 29
I wonder what happened with the bit on the campaign flier? Maybe they
edited it out. It was mentioned on Drudge.
It's hard to imagine putting that much effort into something to be shown
on the internet. On the other hand it's hard to imagine why they put any
effort into it at all. The basic complaint seems to be that Bush
probably hasn't been strictly honest about a question about something in
his personal background. Do people expect strict honesty from
politicians about such things? And is the thing that major in the scheme
of things?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 21 08:41:08 2004
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:41:08 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: latest mindblowing freaky development in CBS saga
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 696
Lines: 31
Wonder what else will come out. It always seemed clear that there was
some sort of coordination going on. Even before CBS 60 Minutes came out
with their report Drudge noted that Big Media were suddenly featuring
Bush TANG stories, and the Dems rolled out their new ad very shortly
after the 60 Minutes piece.
This is all so odd. Among other things the Dems and their media backers
all seem convinced that Karl Rove somehow arranged for hundreds of
Swiftvets including most of the officers involved to go after Kerry. He
just gestures hypnotically and things happen. The TANG stuff no doubt
seemed like an extremely moderate form of payback in kind.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 21 09:27:47 2004
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:27:47 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: ns
Subject: Re: viseu coup
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1103
Lines: 266
Hi,
I don't see anything that should be changed. If anything, the Catholic
Church as represented by the University administrators deserves to be
criticized a thousand times more vehemently. My guess is that they went
along with the coup specifically because they like modernism and would
like nothing better than to disrupt anything smacking of tradition.
On the whole, academic adminstrators and religious functionaries like
modernism because modernism means that administrators and functionaries
run everything and if they want they can redefine the nature of reality.
Why turn that down? At least since Vatican II the tendency has been for
the institutional Catholic Church to become much less sacerdotal and
much more rational-bureaucratic. That has meant among other things a
strong tendency toward modernism.
Naturally you can't say that because you're an outsider, so I think the
general innocent and uncomprehending outsider's tone of "they're doing
things that are seriously wrong, they ought to know it, and how can this
be" is the right one.
Jim
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 21 11:49:55 2004
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:49:55 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: rak
Subject: Re: The movies Alexander and Troy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1646
Lines: 54
Hi,
Haven't seen the two movies. The subjects are certainly heroic, which is
all to the good.
Actually, I haven't even seen F 451. My basic impression is that the
Left has gone insane in the reasonably exact sense that they don't want
to deal with reality and don't think they have to. They can make up
their own reality and live in it. Moore's popularity not to mention the
Dan Rather business seem to me to support that.
Agreed there's a vacuum at the top. The intellectual/academic Left isn't
stupid though even though they've reached a theoretical dead end. Their
basic function is to justify the absolute state and saying "everything's
just opinion" does that because after all as a practical matter you need
some principle of decision and if truth, or at least the concept or
ideal of truth, can't provide it then discussion becomes impossible, all
opinions are worthless, and all anyone can do is defer to the
constituted authorities who after all are experts and so have some kind
of secret knowledge that Tom, Dick and Harry are in no position to rule
out or dispute.
Traditional American arrangements and understandings would certainly be
a lot better than what we've got. I'm just skeptical they can be
restored. Possibly instead of a Weimar-type situation and its
consequences we'll get something like the traditional middle east -- no
public life or public discussion that matters, and weak and corrupt but
despotic government that has nothing much to do with the people, who are
hopelessly fragmented in any event and all live in gated communities
with people they get along with.
Jim
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 21 11:52:41 2004
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:52:41 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: latest mindblowing freaky development in CBS saga
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 172
Lines: 74
The way people talk about Rove is the way crazies talk about Jews. The
malevolent magician as the explanation for all events.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 21 17:37:26 2004
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:37:26 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: db
Subject: Re: Christian guilt on ethnic preference
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 532
Lines: 96
Why can't an institution have a limited mission? You can't educate
everyone in the world. Most educational institutions engage in some sort
of selectivity. Is that a violation of the Golden Rule or does it prove
you overvalue the things of this world? The success of whatever program
you have depends on expectations, attitudes and mutual connections of
those involved, which tend to vary by race. So I don't see a reason in
principle why race can't be a legitimate basis of selection.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Sep 26 10:19:39 2004
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:19:39 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: Wash Times finds another link between CBS and Kerry campaign
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 866
Lines: 73
Somehow this doesn't seem like a catastrophic smoking gun that proves
that CBS and the Kerry people were conspiring. It's true that CBS and
Kerry campaign cooperated, and recognized that on this story at least
they were on the same side, but that was at the end of a long CBS
investigation and was in response to a particular request from a crazy
person. The phone call was Burkett's idea for his own stupid purposes.
On coordination the more fundamental point seems to be the timing:
Day 1 -- big media come out with multi TANG stories (noted at the time
by Drudge)
Day 2 -- CBS 60 Minutes "expose"
Day 3 -- Dems roll out "fortunate son" ad
All that was within less than a week. It really does look like people
were talking to each other. If so it also looks like they're all crazy
since it's such a stupid issue.
Jim
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Sep 26 10:30:49 2004
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:30:49 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Time cover story on sex and health
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1090
Lines: 37
Speaking very abstractly and theoretically, it will be interesting to
see just how all this plays out if we live so long. The current
situation regarding sex won't work because it doesn't give people a
reasonable way to organize a fundamental part of life in a reasonably
stable, functional and satisfactory way. Also, it means society won't
reproduce itself in the most basic physical sense. On the other hand
it's hard to put the genie back into the bottle given everything that's
happened. How do you put sexual restraint back into society without
abolishing the whole liberal worldview? Or more practically, how do you
control internet pornography and whatnot? Liberalism seems to be facing
multi apocalypses.
jk
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:08:26PM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> Thought you might be interested in this cover story in Time from last February I just came across, as I think it fits with various aspects of your analysis of society
>
> http://www.time.com/time/2004/sex/
>
> The cover says: "How your love life keeps you healthy."
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Sep 26 11:57:02 2004
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:57:02 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: Wash Times finds another link between CBS and Kerry campaign
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1352
Lines: 180
Dunno what its meaning is. I ran into Richards once and she seemed
terminally high class and respectable. I'm told the same is true of
Grein. I suppose one lesson is that those things are deceptive esp when
class and respectability are no longer associated with any very
demanding or inconvenient standards but have become a matter of style
and taste.
Another point is the problem of having men and women as colleagues if
there aren't any very definite standards of sexual conduct. I think
Nietzsche said that a man and a woman could very well be friends as long
as there's a slight mutual physical repulsion. I think he was on to
something. One good feature of strict sexual standards is that they can
substitute for the physical repulsion and so make more varied kinds of
contact between men and women possible even when you like the woman's
company. It makes it possible to keep the relation as one sort of thing
rather than another.
I mostly think the relevance of women priests is that it's part of a
general rationalizing and boundary-erasing movement that takes away the
attitudes, conventions etc. that used to civilize vehement impulses
somewhat. So what you're left with is pure impulse on the one side and
an abstract rational system that tells you nothing about concrete issues
on the other.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 10:17:11 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:17:11 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Sexual standards
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 761
Lines: 29
That's certainly a moral. Sex, money and power become obsessions, sex
more than the others because it's more basic, and obsession flattens out
everything and makes the whole world one-dimensional. To keep that from
happening those things have to have a clear functional significance that
limits and defines their place in the world. The complaint about
capitalist society is that it makes money an autonomous power that
simply follows its own laws at the expense of life in general, the
complaint about fascism is that it does the same thing to power. Sexual
liberationists typically claim they don't like fascism or bourgeois
materialism but in fact they're just going much farther in the same
barbaric direction.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 10:32:28 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:32:28 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1053
Lines: 253
"Rationalized," "rationalism," and "rationalist" are quite commonly used
to Procrustean applications of a narrow view of reason, and not just by
Oakeshotteans. In addition, I think it's important to accept liberal
ideals just as liberals understand them and show that even without
claiming that liberals are liars or big dopes, and accepting that
they're sincere and even intelligent and clear-headed up to a point,
their principles lead to disaster. That's the most powerful form of
refutation and the one that I think has the best chance for solid and
enduring success.
Still, I take your point that it's important to point out that there are
more reasonable understandings of reason and when I touch on the point
I'll try to think if something specific needs to be said
I've written a long essay by the way that goes into what's involved in
"reason" understood as a collection of things that enables us to come to
a solid understanding of the Good, Beautiful and True:
http://jkalb.org/book/view/1059
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 10:36:29 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:36:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 443
Lines: 270
The basic problem we have I think is that the current explicit
understanding of reason, the one in which intelligent educated people
have been trained, really does imply liberalism. It includes things like
the fact/value distinction for example and says that scientific method
and formal logic are really the only reliable sources of knowledge and
everything else is personal opinions and values.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 13:01:06 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:01:06 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2415
Lines: 339
I heard the distinction all the time during my year in philosophy grad
school, and frequently since then advanced as a knock-em-dead argument
in internet discussions esp among academically connected people with a
scientific orientation. I agree it's unusual for non-specialists to
discuss fundamental issues explicitly, the absolutely obvious goes
unsaid, but I do think almost all educated people today believe that the
fact something exists doesn't affect at all whether it's good or not and
whether something's good or not doesn't affect at all whether it exists.
That's the view we're used to but in fact it's a rejection of God the
Creator, Christ the Redeemer, Divine Providence, etc., as well as the
classical Christian philosophical identification of goodness and being.
People attribute the fact/value distinction to David Hume, who said it
was "not contrary to reason" to prefer the destruction of the whole
world to the scratching of one's little finger. From his Treatise of
Human Nature:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in
the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God,
or makes observations concerning human affairs: when of a sudden I
am supriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no propositions that is
not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is
imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this
ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,
'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at
the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems
altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction
from others, which are entirely different from it.
So he apparently thinks that "is" can never imply "ought." It seems from
what he says elsewhere that "ought" can't be known or reasoned about:
"If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics,
for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental
reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to
the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 13:55:18 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:55:18 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1626
Lines: 521
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 01:27:21PM -0400, la wrote:
> Well, Hume is what I call a nihilist, i.e., a person who denies that
> moral truth exists and can be known.
Well yes, that's the point of fact/value. "Value" is not "fact."
> Sorry to be obtuse, but I still don't see how this particular line of
> reasoning plays an explicit role in liberalism. I've never heard a
> debate in the public square that deals with these issues. I've never
> seen a particular topic discussed in these terms. Yes, I hear people
> say all the time, "I have my truth and you have yours, and there's no
> way to tell which is better." I understand that. But that can be
> explained in terms of relativism/nihilism, which I've discussed many
> times. What I don't get is what you said before, about the fact/value
> distinction being primary and explicit in modern liberalism. How many
> intelligent modern liberals are even aware of this concept?
My original phrase was "the current explicit understanding of reason,
the one in which intelligent educated people have been trained." I think
most intelligent modern liberals are aware of the concept as they're
aware of the syllogism or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's basic to
their understanding of things, and becomes explicit in specialized
discussions, but for most purposes it's too abstract and
taken-for-granted to advert to. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the
syllogism are explicit, so I'd say fact/value is too in the same sense.
I'd agree that it's implicit rather than explicit in nonspecialized
education and discussion.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 16:39:29 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:39:29 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3893
Lines: 743
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 03:05:08PM -0400, la wrote:
>
>
> Ok, we're now in agreement, since "intelligent educated people" is not
> the same category as specialists. The belief in the fact/value
> distinction along with its related ideas is explicit among specialists;
> it is not explicit among intelligent educated people per se. Therefore
> it does not play an explicit role in the public square and is not part
> of the self-understanding of liberal society. QED.
I'm bothered by this. The self-understanding of a society can't be
explicitly stated in full even by an intelligent member. That doesn't
mean that society doesn't have a self-understanding. Thought and belief
are social to a large degree. There are things each of us relies on
experts and specialists to know about and articulate. I would say that
the fact/value distinction is like that. In my experience when the issue
comes up and someone makes the point it gets presented and deferred to
as an obvious part of rationality.
> >From which it follows, as I suggested earlier, that to make your
> critique of liberalism be more widely understood, you should not assume
> that your readers (who intelligent educated people but not specialists)
> will adequately understand you when you say things like:
I take your point that if I write an article for publication I have to
explain what I mean in terms that are generally accessible. In private
discussions there should be more room for give and take. It would be
extremely time-consuming, and it would give up the advantages of using
the vocabulary that one finds presents the issues most clearly and
concisely (to those who understand the vocabulary), always to have to
put things in the terms one would use in writing for publications.
> "the current explicit understanding of reason ... really does imply
> liberalism. It includes
> things like the fact/value distinction for example and says that
> scientific
> method and formal logic are really the only reliable sources of
> knowledge
> and everything else is personal opinions and values."
>
> My whole point here has been that I, l, don't understand this, not
> really. I don't instantly "get" the idea that liberal society is based
> on the belief that "that scientific method and formal logic are really
> the only reliable sources of knowledge." I sort of get it but I don't
> really get it. I thought modern liberal society was based on the belief
> in equality and freedom.
If anything I say is obscure ask.
On the more basic point, I'm inclined to take post-Cartesian thought at
its word and say it starts with epistemological demands and tries to
square everything with them. One result is that essences and substantive
goods become unknowable, and therefore nonexistent for any human
purpose. "No substantive goods" means we're left with desire, formal
reasoning and technological possibility as the guides for action. All
desires are equally desires, therefore all desires are equally
authoritative, therefore equal freedom (equal ability to pursue and
attain one's desires) becomes the moral standard.
> If the belief in scientific method and formal logic really is the
> underlying, implicit basis of our explicit liberal beliefs, then the
> connection between the philoosphical idea and our explicit beliefs needs
> to be drawn out more clearly and frequently. My point is that using
> semi-specialized shorthand for ideas that are central to your critique
> of liberalism is not the most effective way of making your ideas
> understood.
>
> Again, I admit that I may simply be backward in this area and not
> understand basic ideas that I ought to understand.
It's difficult in advance to be sure what turns of phrase will turn out
to cause a problem in communication. That's why there's nothing wrong
with asking if something is obscure.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Sep 27 18:16:05 2004
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:05 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2051
Lines: 973
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 05:11:20PM -0400, la wrote:
> I don't agree that the self-understanding of a society can't be stated
> in full. The self-understanding of a society is what the politically
> active members of that society actually say about it.
I would have thought it's the way the politically active members of the
society understand the society (which necessarily brings in to some
degree their understanding of politics and human life generally). I
think it's very rare for someone to be able to give an accurate
statement of what he thinks about something as comprehensive and basic
to his life as his society. Producing a clear and comprehensive
statement of what politically active people in a society collectively
think about the society is I think necessarily a specialized task.
> In other words (see the first or second chapter of A New Science of
> Politics for this), the self-understanding of a society--the language
> it uses about itself--is one thing, while the scientific understanding
> of a society is another thing. I think the aim of good political
> writing is to try to bridge the gap, that is, to include as much of
> the scientific understanding in the self-understanding as is possible,
> so that the self-understanding becomes, to the extent possible, more
> and more scientific, i.e., true.
I would distinguish (1) someone's understanding of reality, (2) his
statement of his understanding of reality, (3) a clear, comprehensive
and accurate statement of his understanding of reality, and (4) an
adequate statement of what reality really is. Scientific understanding
aims at the last. I would put the "fact/value" distinction in the third
category, with statements like "value judgements are basically a matter
of opinion" in the second. You can use the phrase "self-understanding of
a society" to refer to (2) if you want but there's the problem that
different people say different things so to produce something coherent a
special effort is needed by the observer.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Sep 28 14:53:20 2004
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:53:20 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: problems with the use of the the term "rational"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 418
Lines: 1160
But level 3 clarifies and summarizes level 2. It doesn't say anything
substantively different. I would think that political science does say
something different. Part of political science would consist in
analyzing and setting forth the self-understanding of a society, not
however for the sake of accepting it as such but for the sake of judging
its adequacy to reality.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Oct 4 09:33:24 2004
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:33:24 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: ek
Subject: Re: slate thing on hating ? loving? india
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 453
Lines: 89
The rule is that if you can tie anything to the Repubs it's
automatically discredited. Nothing further need be said. A big defense
for Rather was that the guy who first pointed out the basic issue with
the memos (on FreeRepublic) sometimes did things for the Repubs. The
Swiftvets were just a Republican smear arranged by Karl Rove (that idiot
Maureen Dowd) actually claimed that. Etc. The usual term for that type
of argument is "demonization."
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Oct 5 16:30:39 2004
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:30:39 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: t
Subject: Re: ferrara
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 694
Lines: 138
The point of tradition, the Tridentine mass etc. is that they put us in
touch with the most basic things. They aren't about themselves or about
us but about God. That shouldn't make us self-involved and it should
make us more able to deal with the world in productive ways, to the
extent there are opportunities, and not become bitter and contemptuous
and personally affronted when things aren't going well. The conference
gave the impression that Catholic traditionalism isn't likely to go
anywhere. That doesn't apply to Rao and I have met others like him. If
we were all like that I think the traditionalist movement wouldn't stay
so marginal.
Jim
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Oct 7 13:42:48 2004
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:42:48 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: pg
Subject: Re: A Hobbesian, Not A Nihilist
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 857
Lines: 308
I'm a bit unclear on p's objection in principle to the contemporary
advanced liberal state. It actually does exist, and it's replaced what
came before, and it's spread and become the most widespread public model
of what a state should be (it's the advanced liberal state and not the
Islamic republic or Singapore that international human rights
conferences etc. proclaim as the standard). It doesn't seem likely then
that it violates an inescapable starting point for political modernity
that one must accept if one recognizes current pragmatically reliable
understandings of man or whatnot. Does it simply go against his personal
tastes? His settled view of the political Good? Or is it his view that
it's living on borrowed time and will become radically nonfunctional and
disappear in reasonably short order?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Oct 7 15:30:09 2004
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:30:09 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: A Hobbesian, Not A Nihilist
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 939
Lines: 358
Ideology matters though. It's important what people think the show is
all about. It makes me wonder about the prospects for the East Asian
model. At least from a great distance the appearance is that it has
certain contradictions. The idea seems to be individual subordination
and group cooperation for group goals. The group goals though seem to
cash out to consumer goodies and wholly abstract collective power and
prestige. Will those two things be enough to motivate continued
individual subordination and group cooperation?
My understanding is that both Japan and Singapore have very serious
problems with low natality, and in Japan at least young people don't
want to get married and when they eventually do get married they're less
and less interested in having children. Why take on all the obligations
when you can stay single and childless and have fun and advance yourself
instead?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Oct 8 08:15:08 2004
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:15:08 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Scotus rejects Catholic charities appeal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 707
Lines: 22
Looks from the article like they denied certiori, which means they
simply didn't want to review the case. Just as well since it's not
likely they'd come out the right way.
More and more states have been doing this, including NY. It's really an
outrage. It's hard to see why anyone would think the claim of women who
want to work for a few religiously-oriented employers and also use
contraception and get paid a couple hundred extra dollars a year for
doing it outweighs the forcing of conscience. "Discrimination" trumps
everything though.
jk
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 02:53:01PM -0400, la wrote:
> http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002697.php
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Oct 10 15:12:46 2004
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:12:46 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created. 09/10/2004.ABC News Online
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 461
Lines: 50
An odd feature of the article is the journalist's statement that "the
vast majority of infected Africans are women, according to UNAIDS
estimates." A quick google search shows that in sub-Saharan Africa there
are 23.1 million total and 13.1 million women infected:
http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm
That's not a "vast majority." It's an indication of how journalists
think about "women's health issues" though.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Oct 12 21:58:49 2004
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:58:49 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush applies his universal democracy schtick to illegal aliens
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 157
Lines: 29
Good point. The modern state is supposed to be based on basic desires.
The point deserves further development.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Oct 13 08:04:39 2004
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:04:39 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush applies his universal democracy schtick to illegal aliens
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1306
Lines: 103
The distinction between liberalism based on recognition of universal
rights and liberalism based on acceptance of everyone's basic desires
explains a lot. The former says that citizens are citizens because of
knowledge and discipline. They are citizens because they understand the
basic principles of social cooperation and act on them in a responsible
way. The latter says that citizens are citizens because they want stuff
for themselves, and have given up any aversion to the desires of others
-- that is, because they no longer have the ability to make distinctions
and act on them. Both forms of liberalism emphasize autonomy of a sort
but in the latter case the autonomy no longer has a rational component,
it just means having desires and not having to repress them, so the
rational component has to come from somewhere else, the social structure
rather than the individual.
There are obvious implications for attitudes toward
Federalism and local control
Government by judiciary, functionaries and experts
The welfare state
National independence vs. world "governance"
Whether felons should be allowed to vote
Gun control
Sexual conduct
"Family values" vs. liberation from oppressive patriarchal etc.
structures
Children's and animal rights
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Oct 13 13:32:01 2004
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:32:01 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush applies his universal democracy schtick to illegal aliens
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 609
Lines: 38
I seem to have noticed a tendency among "conservative" deep thinkers (I
can't cite sources) to say that not democracy by itself, and not the
liberal welfare state, will wean Muslims away from Islamism, but
democratic capitalism, the kind of society they like anyway. I think
people cite John Locke, David Hume, James Madison etc. for the
proposition that a commercial society with the rule of law, freedom for
all religions, and legitimate pursuit of economic self interest will
dissipate religious enthusiasm and make people devote themselves to
economic goals.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Oct 13 14:07:54 2004
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:07:54 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush applies his universal democracy schtick to illegal aliens
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 566
Lines: 77
The problem with the trend of thought I mentioned is that it assumes
that commercial society is self-supporting. It doesn't need any higher
truth or loyalty than what it generates from its own resources. So we
don't really need Christianity except to the extent it's an adjunct to
what really makes the world go 'round, money, ambition and natural human
feelings like family affection and whatnot. And if the Muslims only set
up a Lockean/Madisonian republic they'll discover the same about Islam.
Or so the story goes.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Oct 15 13:01:39 2004
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:01:39 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: ci
Subject: Re: Lincoln
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 535
Lines: 129
It seems to me the War affected timing but not result. The Southern US
is on the same planet as Russia and Brazil. After a while it would have
been economical for slaveholders to sell their freedom to efficient
slaves and cut the inefficient ones loose as a bad deal in any event. It
wasn't an institution that was going to go anyplace.
Suppose the South had been independent from the beginning, or they had
achieved their independence after secession. Would slavery have lasted
forever?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Oct 15 19:28:33 2004
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:28:33 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: War of the Rebellion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1222
Lines: 778
Since the Southern states seceded by having conventions it looks to me
like what they did was consistent with the theory behind the adoption of
the Constitution. The understanding at the time of adoption was
apparently that ultimate sovereignty lay with the people of the several
states meeting in their own conventions. That method was used for
adopting the Constitution rather than the procedure given in the
Articles of Confederation:
"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by
every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration
at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be
agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards
confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Apparently the Framers and everyone else thought state conventions
trumped that language, even though it was more explicit on the
irrevocability of the union than anything in the Constitution itself.
It's worth noting that if only 9 states had adopted the Constitution
then apparently their relation to the remaining 3 states would have been
rather like that of the Confederacy to the remainder of the Union.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Oct 15 22:03:41 2004
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:03:41 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: rl
Subject: Re: War of the Rebellion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 418
Lines: 966
I assume the adoption of the Constitution was understood as lawful and
not an act of revolution. How does this deal with the apparent view at
that time that state conventions trumped the "inviolably observed" and
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made" of the
"perpetual" Articles of Confederation? The A of C had a formal amendment
process too after all.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Oct 16 08:08:10 2004
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:08:10 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: rl
Subject: Re: War of the Rebellion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1065
Lines: 1181
Yes. One can describe what happened in 1788 as the secession of some of
the states in accordance with resolutions adopted at state conventions
from the union created by the perpetual Articles of Confederation and
the formation by those states of their own union. There were differences
of setting and intent from the 1860-1861 situation but the narrow
legalities at least were pretty similar. The results after 1788 (if the
4 Southern-most states hadn't adopted the Constitution) and after 1861
(if the Confereracy had been a success) might have been rather similar.
I suppose my basic point is that if the 1787-1788 situation was
lawmaking at its best it doesn't makes sense to describe the 1860-1861
secessions as simply insurrection, rebellion and treason. Both seem to
depend on the thought that the existence of the union under some
fundamental law doesn't take ultimate sovereignty away from the people
of the states who can exercise their sovereignty without regard to the
written fundamental law of the union.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Oct 18 17:31:55 2004
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:31:55 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: mg
Subject: Re: Jacques Derrida Dead
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 322
Lines: 79
An important comment. The bottom line of academic sceptical, relativist
etc. views is that nobody's allowed to have an opinion except certified
experts and the opinion of certified experts can't be criticized on any
grounds whatever but whatever it is must stand as absolute.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Oct 19 08:18:08 2004
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:18:08 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Jacques Derrida Dead
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 728
Lines: 102
Yes. It's not completely destructive though. I really think that the net
effect of all current "mainstream radical" trends of thought -- decon,
multiculti, revisionist theology, etc. is that no one is allowed to have
an opinion that's anything but his own private fantasy, so that
established administrative structures and certified expertise become
unchallengable. That's one reason such trends of thought do so well in
established institutions. They make it impossible to make waves with any
justification. If you don't do what you're told and claim you're
thrilled to do it you're "resisting change" etc. So it's no surprise
when Derrida died Chirac said he was a wonderful guy.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Oct 19 10:53:10 2004
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:53:10 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: War of the Rebellion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1395
Lines: 53
What I said was that the narrow legalities were similar. So far as I
know the delegates weren't authorized to do more than draft revisions to
the Articles of Confederation so I'm not sure their agreement among
themselves that they had all done much more than that would have more
than political effect. I don't see why their states had to view
themselves as bound by their delegates on the point. As I agreed,
setting and intent were different, but nothing was locked in place and
the result by 1790 and thereafter might have been pretty much the same
as after 1861 if the South had been permitted to secede unmolested. You
could have had two federations, a smaller looser one and a bigger more
unified one. In both cases the splitup would have resulted from the
actions of state conventions not contemplated or authorized by the
preceding written fundamental law or any change in that law in
accordance with its terms.
My chief target in all this was the statements from a couple of the
participants that the Confederates were purely and simply rebels and
traitors because a nation is a nation, case closed. It seems to me there
was a lot more doubt than that about the nature of the union, where
ultimate loyalty should lie if ultimate conflicts should arise, and what
theory of sovereignty the 1787 Constitution was based on in the first
place.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Oct 20 11:01:56 2004
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:01:56 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: was the Constitution illegal, etc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1388
Lines: 33
Agreed that legalism is the wrong way to go and I don't know of anything
I've said that would imply the contrary.
My point hasn't been that there's something illegitimate about the
Constitution. It's been that the way it was adopted seems based on the
view that the people are ultimately sovereign and in times of crisis
when they are deciding fundamental issues of political destiny it is
lawful for them to make the decision by meeting in convention rather
than by following the predefined legal forms. It also seems to require
the view that it's the people of the states who are the ultimate
decisionmakers, and if the decisions of the people of the states mean
that the union doesn't continue to be a union then that's the way it
will be in spite of the language of perpetuity and exclusiveness in the
Articles of Confederation.
Really, I'm not quite sure what the discussion is about. I suppose a lot
of things. I do think that if a whole section of a federal union of
continental size with a general government responsible only for common
defense and promoting commercial prosperity after years of argument
decides that its own fundamental existential needs mean it should
separate, and it acts in a reasonably orderly way to do so, then
reconquest shouldn't be viewed as a simple demand of law enforcement and
in fact is a bad idea.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Oct 20 15:00:46 2004
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:00:46 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why liberals don't treat conservative opinions as opinions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 649
Lines: 24
There are a lot of angles on this. Another way to put it is that
liberalism supposedly bases social order on consent. Since the
particular desires of individuals are the only authority the way things
are is legitimate only if it's what everybody really wants. That
obviously won't work if sane legitimate non-deceitful non-confused
people disagree in any material way with the liberal idea of what social
order ought to look like. Therefore conservatives can't be sane,
legitimate, non-deceitful, non-confused etc. because if they are the
simple fact they exist means the liberal position doesn't work.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Oct 23 19:09:51 2004
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:09:51 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: t
Bcc: kalb@aya.yale.edu
Subject: Re: debate about Storck's article
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3178
Lines: 329
Hi,
These issues are certainly worth discussing and I should put something
together for Turnabout. It's hard though to repost private emails. Also,
my angle is probably different enough that it wouldn't make sense to
quote long passages.
I suppose the pro-Kerry argument would be that (1) the president is not
directly in charge of abortion and can't easily do much about it, and
(2) Bush and still more his associates and allies don't care that much
and won't do anything effective. The argurment would be that the
material cooperation in evil isn't all that material, since the material
result will be the same however the election comes out, and voting e.g.
for somebody you think is going to cause unnecesary wars makes a much
greater material contribution to evil. I don't accept the argument but I
can imagine someone making it in good faith. One problem with it is that
it seems to ignore the big picture and also the importance of ultimate
principles. The Dems really are the party of abortion, it's their most
sacred principle, and they have to be opposed.
On other issues, Storck says "left" and "right" positions are internally
incoherent and in effect says that the kind of social justice the
Democrats favor is a good thing. I don't agree on either point. It seems
to me a fundamental threat Catholicism and humanity generally face today
is a general movement toward a comprehensive all-pervasive social order
administered on rational hedonistic principles that insists on
eradicating everything at odds with itself. Left/liberals and thus the
Democratic party stand for that kind of movement toward a sort of
universal EU. They have to be opposed. The right resists the movement
one way or another and so must be supported but of course critically
since the resistence is partial and opportunistic and the vision of
something better is mostly lacking.
I have a big problem with the current understanding of social justice.
That view basically implies that there has to be universal central
adminstration of everything to which social justice applies. Otherwise
uniform principles won't apply. There will be big discrepencies and a
great many particular injustices and systemic inequalities with no
general way to deal with them. That will be unjust as justice is now
understood. The problem is that if you try to set up a system that
delivers ultimate results to individuals that seem just you have to set
up a uniform centrally controlled way for the results for each
individual to come about. You have to eliminate local autonomy and
initiative, and the effects of history, cultural differences and the way
people live their lives and the choices they make individually and
socially. To me that means universal tyranny.
I think Catholics have to rethink social justice independently of the
left/liberal understanding. I think it has to be more a complex goal and
process in which people and communities should participate but it can't
be centrally guaranteed and it's always going to be radically imperfect.
The current understanding has a secular utopian quality. It shouldn't be
a selling point for the Dems.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Oct 26 09:46:26 2004
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:46:26 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: t
Subject: Re: debate about Storck's article
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 537
Lines: 14
Hi,
I should add that another very serious drawback for any pro-Kerry
argument is his pledge only to appoint pro-Roe v. Wade justices to the
Supreme Court, and his pledge to reverse the Mexico City rule banning
use of US funds for abortions abroad. Those points make the cooperation
in evil involved in a pro-Kerry vote a whole lot more direct and
material. I suppose you'd have to argue that the Court's very unlikely
reverse Roe anyway. I don't know what you'd argue on the Mexico City
point.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 7 09:06:03 2004
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:06:03 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: gd
Subject: Re: wonderful article
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 711
Lines: 39
Hello,
Glad you liked the article and found it helpful. My website jkalb.org
has some resources you might find useful, especially those listed on the
Traditionalist Conservative Page that's linked from the front page.
As I think the essay suggests, it's very hard to fight liberalism
because it's so pervasive. So it's important for us to try to get to the
bottom of things. If we don't we'll just rely on what's generally
accepted about things and we'll end up recapitulating liberalism. In the
end I think what's required is a sort of re-orientation of life.
Liberalism is basically a religious problem.
Anyway, glad you're interested and thanks for the note!
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 8 11:10:58 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:10:58 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: ak
Subject: Re: your remark about the Catholic Church
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 109
Lines: 106
"No Child Left Behind" doesn't sit very well with subsidiarity.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 8 12:01:15 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:01:15 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: In the midst of liberal defeat, the core liberal delusion about the nature of liberalism lives on
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 781
Lines: 48
It's the whole argument of the Pensees. We can't be skeptical, we can't
be satisfied with dogmatism, one can always disintegrate any perspective
into incoherence, nonetheless we can't but act, even trying not to act
is a decision to act, and every act carries with it a theory about the
world, what is good, the destiny of man etc. So all we can do is
determine an orientation and go for it. The excellence of a man is to
doubt and believe well, as the excellence of a horse is to run well. And
once we have determined an orientation, if it is well-chosen, internal
reasons will multiply for holding it and accepting that it gives us a
grip on reality.
Read it, it's beautifully written and clear as one might expect from the
author.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 8 14:09:04 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:09:04 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: ak
Subject: Re: your remark about the Catholic Church
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 9487
Lines: 163
> There is nothing in Catholic teaching that intrinsically is opposed to a
> big government New Deal welfare sate. Catholic social teaching says that
> a society must care for its poor. The Vatican stays away from commenting
> on the details of how it should do this because such questions are
> matters of prudence and not doctrine.
>
> On the local level, bishops have supported New Deal type policy, it is
> true.
I think "nothing in Catholic teaching" is too strong when the effects of
the big government welfare state as known by experience are taken into
account. Subsidiarity is explicitly a basic principles of papal social
teaching. It's not an optional thing that can be put aside, and it has
to be highly relevant on the issue. Saying issues of prudence are
decisive is not to say doctrine doesn't point away from some things of
at least provide something in Catholic teaching that counsels against
them.
It's true that e.g. episcopal conferences have at least implicitly taken
the view that "society must care for its weakest members" etc. as a
command to set up a reliable comprehensive system that does that, which
will always involve a central state bureaucracy in charge of everything
that matters. I don't think that approach is really supportable though
on a reasonable understanding of the facts. It seems to me for example
that "No Child Left Behind" plainly "assign[s] to a greater and higher
association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."
Some relevant quotes:
The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of
subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should
not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order,
depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in
case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of
the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" (CA, n. 48;
cf. QA, nn. 184186). God has not willed to reserve to himself all
exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is
capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature.
This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God
acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard
for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human
communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence. The
principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It
sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the
relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the
establishment of true international order.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, nn. 1883-1885.
In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there
necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum
Novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature
of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in
various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including
economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human
nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the
common good. This is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society
which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled
out by "Real Socialism" (SRS, nn. 15, 28).
- John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, May 1, 1991, n.
13.
It is in full accord with human nature that juridicalpolitical
structures should, with ever better success and without any
discrimination, afford all their citizens the chance to participate
freely and actively in establishing the constitutional bases of a
political community, governing the state, determining the scope and
purpose of various institutions, and choosing leaders.... Authorities
must beware of hindering family, social, or cultural groups, as well as
intermediate bodies and institutions. They must not deprive them of
their own lawful and effective activity, but should rather strive to
promote them willingly and in an orderly fashion. For their part,
citizens both as individuals and in association should be on guard
against granting government too much authority and inappropriately
seeking from it excessive conveniences and advantages, with a consequent
weakening of the sense of responsibility on the part of individuals,
families, and social groups.
- Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), December 7, 1965, n. 75.
[I]n exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a
substitute function, when sectors or business systems are too weak or
are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such
supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons
touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid
removing permanently from society and business systems the functions
which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the
sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil
freedom. In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly
expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called
Welfare State. This has happened in some countries in order to respond
better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and
deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses,
especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the
Welfare State, dubbed the Social Assistance State. Malfunctions and
defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle
of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should
not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order,
depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in
case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of
the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. By
intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the
Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an
inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by
bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients,
and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact,
it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people
who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It
should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response
which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the
deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants,
the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for
assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped
effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in
addition to the necessary care.
- John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, May 1, 1991, n.
48.
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can
accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the
community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil
and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher
association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every
social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members
of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. (Pius XI,
Quadragesimo Anno #79)
If the organization and structure of economic life be such that the
human dignity of workers is compromised, or their sense of
responsibility is weakened, or their freedom of action is removed, then
we judge such an economic order to be unjust, even though it produces a
vast amount of goods, whose distribution conforms to the norms of
justice and equity. (John XXIII, Mater et Magistra #83)
And yet many today go so far as to condemn the Church as the ancient
pagans once did, for such outstanding charity, and would substitute in
lieu thereof a system of benevolence established by the laws of the
State. But no human devices can ever be found to supplant Christian
charity, which gives itself entirely for the benefit of others. This
virtue belongs to the Church alone, for, unless it is derived from the
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, it is in no wise a virtue; and whosoever
departs from the Church wanders far from Christ.
- Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (On the Conditions of
the Workers), May 15, 1891, n. 30.
If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the
poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely
awareness that the state has the duty of watching over thecommon good
and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the
economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the
rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not, however, lead us to
think that Pope Leo expected the state to solve every soci al problem.
On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the States
intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the State
exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them.
- John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, May 1, 1991, n.
11.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 8 15:23:40 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:23:40 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: ak
Subject: Re: your remark about the Catholic Church
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 566
Lines: 32
It does seem to me though that on what is known today someone who
believes that an activist federal bureaucracy can best accomplish the
goals of Catholic social teaching, including the basic principle of
subsidiarity, is not prudent. Applied to education I find it downright
unreasonable. Bad judgment is of course compatible with good conscience
even though we are conscience-bound to judge things as accurately as
possible. Certainly it's not the function of the hierarchy to tell us
what specific things are prudent.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 8 19:42:55 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:42:55 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: k
Subject: Re: In the midst of liberal defeat, the core liberal delusion about the nature of liberalism lives on
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1036
Lines: 67
But gay alimony isn't some isolated event that might equally happen or
not happen. It means a change in fundamental social principle, which
will always be backed up by a comprehensive system of coercion -- hate
speech laws, indoctrination in school and workplace, a requirement that
everyone accord "gay marriage" the same status as marriage, etc.
To the extent the change means principles based on natural human
tendencies that constantly pop up in all societies get replaced by
principles based on radical abstractions like the modern understanding
of equality, it means replacement of institutions (family, neighborhood,
normal self-generated moral feelings and standards) that mostly generate
and run by themselves by other institutions (welfare and equality
bureaucracies, various professional "helpers") that have to be
consciously designed and administered. It means expansion of the
coercive state apparatus and alienation of those who operate it from the
general run of humanity.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Nov 9 11:26:29 2004
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:26:29 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: mf
Subject: Re: a formulation of liberalism I like
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1578
Lines: 57
You can look at liberalism at different levels:
1. Ultimate principles. When principles are basic enough, like the
principles of grammar or rationality, people aren't completely aware of
them, they state them variously, how they are applied changes over time,
and a lot of what people do and say is at odds with them. Nonetheless,
the principles are there and determine what happens in crucial cases
when something important comes in question. They're also very stable.
Otherwise understandings would be too much at odds for the relevant
community to endure. Since crucial cases determine the direction of
events, ultimate principles are extremely important. The Richardson
formulation applies mostly at this level I think. It's a logical
consequence of the ultimately authoritative principles.
2. The actual views of particular people who perhaps only implicitly
accept the ultimate principles but do treat them as authoritative when
something becomes an unavoidable issue.
3. The explicit public liberal philosophy, which arises from the
interaction between 1 and established institutions and ways of thinking
and is generally intermediate between 1 and 2.
It seems to me that if you want to discuss grand civilizational themes,
or Where Is All This Leading And What Should We Do About It, then 1 is
the level to talk about. It also seems to me that 2 and 3 are converging
on 1 as time goes by. 3 in particular is almost there now. I think
Matt's formulation below is at level 3 and his personal reminiscences
are at level 2.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Nov 11 15:42:10 2004
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:42:10 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Since you mentioned de Sade yesterday, you may find this interesting
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1738
Lines: 49
I think there's something to that. If your will is the absolute standard
then you have to destroy everything because if anything exists at all
then just by presuming to be there without your making it be there it's
an affront. All existence is an attack on you becaause it says that you
and what you choose isn't everything.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 08:35:39 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:35:39 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3124
Lines: 38
Yes, they're parallel thoughts. Whatever is highest and most
authoritative in your mind becomes your religion and everything else has
to explain itself by reference to it.
Actually, I'm quite depressed since the election because of the
universal failure of "right wing" publicists to defend the anti-gay
marriage initiatives on the merits. It forced me to contemplate what a
hole we're in.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 08:59:35 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:59:35 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4220
Lines: 98
Can you think of any rightwing columnists etc who say "yes, opposition
to "gay marriage" was part of the reason for Bush's victory, and that's
a good thing because "gay marriage" is bad so opposition to it is public
spirited and good"?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 09:37:45 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:37:45 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 520
Lines: 136
I don't agree. You have principle -- the great civil rights issue of the
21st c., an absolutely basic and unarguable point of human dignity -- on
one side, which happens to be the side that all enlightened and
respectable opinion and accredited mainstream authority takes, and on
the other side you have "60% of the people aren't used to this, they
don't like it, they feel there's something wrong with it, they don't
like it shoved down their throats." Who's going to win?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 15:27:39 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:27:39 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 759
Lines: 196
The drive for homosexual liberation is not a temporary or superficial
thing. It's not that much of a minority thing either. The difference
between marriage and civil unions isn't worth staking much on. Put the
pro-gay marriage vote and the pro civil unions vote together and you
probably have a majority of the public and basically the whole of the
articulate and influential classes.
Particular victories are of course good but they mean nothing without a
setting that enables them to be fruitful. The post-election discussions
made it clear once again what that setting is. In a society like ours
habitual cultural instinct doesn't mean much when it's called in
question unless it has principle to back it up.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 15:36:27 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:36:27 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 694
Lines: 210
So in one American state this bizarre, unprecedented and utterly
fundamental innovation gets 43% of the masses and basically the whole of
the classes. Why should that cheer me up?
I have no idea how creeping civil unions, which amount to creeping
marriage, can be staved off without public principle that says just what
is wrong with gay marriage. You just keep giving same-sex couples one
attribute after another of marriage until they have the whole thing. Do
you think a state constitution provision against such a process could
get by the courts after Lawrence and the Colorado Prop 2 cases? Even W
the notorious theocrat favors civil unions.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Nov 14 16:30:10 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:30:11 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Why Dems are so depressed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 361
Lines: 11
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0500, la wrote:
> If you want to be glum about the general drift of society, you have
> every right. But to be glum about this recent development, that doesn't
> make sense to me.
I wasn't complaining about either but about the unwillingness to contest
the substance of the issue.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Nov 17 09:43:36 2004
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:43:36 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: rk
Subject: Re: patents & copyrights
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2416
Lines: 73
Hi,
I hadn't thought about it but I suppose that must be true. The whole
basis of thought is different (e.g., libertarians make everything
procedural, which in effect makes value subjective, while Randians are
of course Objectivist).
Thanks for the pages.
To my mind it's hard to say someone can own an idea. Some problems:
1. Ideas come from other ideas, and one blends into another. So there
are big line drawing problems.
2. People arrive at the same ideas independently, often at almost the
same time. When that happens the same idea is equally the result of the
work, inspiration etc. of two different people. Are they co-owners? It
doesn't seem to be a matter of natural right that the first guy should
be able to exclude the second. Isn't the second guy allowed to think his
own thoughts too?
3. How can anyone control the spread or use of an idea? If Ayn Rand had
published her books articles etc. with a notice saying she was only
granting a license good until 1970, should she have been able to
announce on Jan 1 1970 "OK everybody, until 50 years after my death
nobody can think any thoughts that include or rely on any of my ideas,
and anybody who comes up with the same ideas independently has to keep
quiet about them and if he's honest and doesn't want to steal my
property he'll take some drug to make him forget about them because if
he thinks about them privately he'll be using them"? Or maybe she could
have had a notice saying she's transferring her ideas subject to the
restriction that everybody except Murray Rothbard is allowed to use them
and then she could sue Murray Rothbard if he criticized her ideas
because in order to criticize them he'd have to say what her ideas are
and thus use them.
So under copyright I don't think it's an idea you own, it's a specific
pattern of words, lines, colors, sounds or whatever. The idea can be new
or old. If I wrote an essay about how 2+2=4 that would be covered by
copyright.
Patent is different. There what you're protecting is more like an idea.
It really does look artificial there because if you didn't come up with
it someone else would have. At least that's usually so. So by granting a
patent you're saying that other people can't pursue their own inquiries
if it turns out you've already gone down that road. Why should you have
a right to keep other people from thinking about things and coming up
with ideas on their own?
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Nov 18 15:48:30 2004
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:48:30 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: cw
Subject: Re: World Affairs Conference - Upper Canada College
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2730
Lines: 122
I looked at the statement:
"Sexism is a concern known world-wide. It exists in almost every home,
school, and community and affects everyone. This hot topic has been
under debate for centuries. Are men and women equal? Modern views say
yes, but still there is disagreement upon the roles and boundaries of
each gender. Some argue that men and women are equal in every respect,
and are therefore entitled to the same opportunities, rights and
privileges. However others believe that society has drawn a clear
distinction between the sexes in terms of their purpose and function and
thus individual roles are necessary, and discarding these values would
tear the very framework of society that has been crafted over the ages.
This plenary will deal with both sides concerning the double standard
between men and women, as well as what gender roles, if any, are
associated with which sex."
The statement seems to envision speaker A (me) giving a list of sexual
distinctions and saying that's what's right and good and everyone should
accept the list and people should enforce it, and speaker B (a feminist)
saying "no, that list is oppressive and doesn't make sense and all these
distinctions should be done away with because they're not real."
My inclination is to take a different approach, to say that the basic
issue is how people can live with each other most happily. The issue
that follows from that is how the standards, understandings, practices
etc. that people go by are going to develop and become established. If
you give a lot of play to what makes sense and seems to work for
ordinary people, which I think is necessary to avoid shackles,
oppression and the stupidity of bureaucracies, then people end up
recognizing differences between men and women and what's expected of
them. If that weren't so then sex distinctions wouldn't be such a
repetitive thing in all times and places.
There are similarities in what develops here and there, which confirms
that the distinctions recognized have a basis in basic human realities,
but there are differences too. For that reason I don't see any point in
arguing for some particular list that has to apply globally, especially
when the idea is to give some credit to what people work out among
themselves. The basic points to my mind are that it's wrong to try to
root out the kinds of things that people generally accept and find right
and proper, if that's the way it is then those things evidently serve a
necessary function, and that political and legal feminism at least in
its familiar forms requires comprehensive centralized control of social
relations, which is a bad way to break shackles and overthrow
oppression.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Nov 27 10:40:36 2004
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:40:36 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: rk
Subject: Re: Fw: HBL Paving bin Laden's road
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1180
Lines: 156
Hi,
Thanks for the note. I agree with HB that there's a lot of silliness and
posing in philosophy, that skepticism can't be maintained, and that it
opens the door to all sorts of craziness. I suppose I disagree with him
(he doesn't say enough here to give a full picture of his views) in that
I think the skeptics have a point in that there's no given foundation of
knowledge from which we can proceed by something like scientific method
to build up all the knowledge we need. E.g., "all knowledge is based on
perception, which is a given" so far as I can see is neither something
we perceive, nor is it something that's just given to us. It's a
judgment, and from our standpoint a judgement always has a somewhat
subjective element.
None of which means that we can't know anything, or that every claim
anyone makes is equally good. It only means that knowledge can't be
turned into a self-contained formalized system that we're perfect
masters of. Which is something Aristotle would certainly have accepted.
He said that you look for the best kind of explanation you can find for
the particular subject matter and don't demand e.g. mathematical
demonstration in ethics.
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Dec 4 09:05:11 2004
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:05:11 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Further interesting comments by FP poster about the Church's liberal humanism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2034
Lines: 158
Hi l,
I've always assumed that the man-worshipping-himself speech wasn't
intended the way it sounds, so presumably Dom Ambrose's points are
well-taken.
I don't think the Church at the highest levels has given formal approval
to modern liberalism as a self-contained system on its own terms. It's
given approval to things that have the same names as the goals of modern
liberalism -- "human rights," "democracy," "development," etc. -- and
it's said that mod. lib. does in fact want those things and that's good,
but it also says that something additional is needed for mod. lib. to
have a full and sufficient conception of them. "We're here to help you"
is the intended message.
There's some precedent for the approach. Justin Martyr for example
talked about Christ as if he were a philosopher who taught the true and
complete philosophy (without of course denying or even hiding
specifically Christian doctrines) and treated Socrates etc. as virtual
Christians. One difference I think is that in Justin Martyr's time
discussions were more private so it was easier for Christians among
themselves to talk about the faith in the natural way for those who
accept and live it while in dealing with e.g. stoics to talk about
Christianity as if it were a sort of improved and completed stoicism.
Today with instant broadband mass communications etc. that's not
possible. It just confuses people.
So I do think that today the Church has to be quite clearly at odds with
accepted public ways of thinking. I think the problem of sliding into
the swamp of accommodation is solving itself to some extent though
because at this point accepted public ways of thinking are more and more
clearly rejecting the notion of accommodation with religion. Christians
are going to have to see the society to which they most fundamentally
belong, that defines who they are and whose highest principle becomes
their own highest principle, as the City of God rather than the local
version of the City of Man.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Dec 4 09:49:51 2004
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:49:51 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Further interesting comments by FP poster about the Church's liberal humanism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 240
Lines: 16
Even on its face, "we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of
man" is a statement that the Church's cult of man is different from and
better than the cult of man other people carry on.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Dec 4 11:34:49 2004
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:34:49 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Further interesting comments by FP poster about the Church's liberal humanism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 367
Lines: 51
I'd say "the impression it gives" rather than "evident meaning." You
don't have to read between the lines that much, you just have to attend
to what specifically is said and isn't said and ask how to make sense of
it as a whole.
I agree of course that the attempt to communicate in this manner has
been a huge failure.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Dec 6 07:17:18 2004
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:17:19 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Bush likes people who "triumphed over obstacles"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 556
Lines: 44
There's something ritualistic about the whole thing. When Mr. Mediocre
Minority is given yet another high-level job it re-enacts the overcoming
of horrible American racism, thereby showing forth the wonderfulness of
the transfigured nonracist America. Since it's a ritual the everyday
pragmatic aspects of the situation really don't matter. And since this
is America the collective ritual has to be described as a compelling
story of individual achievement because that's the way we always think
about things.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jan 8 18:11:27 2005
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:11:27 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: neutral scholar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1390
Lines: 27
> I've changed the particular references in this statement so as not to give away who I'm talking about. If you came upon such a statement made by a scholar about the main field of his work, what would be your thoughts about it? What does it tell you about the speaker?
>
>
> "I approach the ideology and praxis of Marxism in a neutral fashion,
> neither praising it nor attacking it but in a spirit of inquiry. Neither
> apologist nor booster, neither spokesman nor critic, I consider myself a
> student of this subject."
If it's the main field of his work I'd consider it a very odd statement.
The praxis of Marxism involved killing 100,000,000 innocents. How could
you put a lifetime of inquiry into such a topic and and remain neutral?
You'd either have to explain away horrors or view Marxism as something
horrifying, and neither alternative is neutral.
So I wouldn't trust the statement. I'd assume it was made to make some
sort of effect on some particular audience. I'd have to know more to say
just what.
I could imagine someone whose main field is something else, economics
say, abstracting from moral and human elements to study Marxism (along
with other topics) simply from an economic standpoint, as a system with
certain objective properties. But someone who takes it as his main field
of study would be in a different posture.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jan 8 20:36:21 2005
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:36:21 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: neutral scholar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 488
Lines: 21
But the tendency of what passes for intelligent informed scholarly
public discussion is extremely protective of Islam. So to get anywhere
Pipes has to present what he has to say in as neutral and nonjudgmental
a way as possible. Presumably he expects that even neutrally presented
the facts will speak for themselves, or if they don't then the situation
is hopeless anyway so he loses nothing by putting on the show of
value-free neutrality.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 10 15:12:11 2005
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:12:11 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: CBS internal report --- but it's still a cover up. Look at this:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 468
Lines: 57
Makes sense. If there's a political outlook that's presumed in
everything a group of people do, but it habitually remains unspoken
since there's no need to say it and besides everything has to appear
professional and objective, then there won't be a particular indication
that the outlook played a role in any particular decision. If you're an
outside investigator there won't be anything distinct to pin a
conclusion on.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jan 12 10:05:56 2005
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:05:56 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: True transparency: the basis on which the Thornburgh report found there was no bias at CBS
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 830
Lines: 30
The key point for me is that the panel wouldn't even say whether the
(blatently forged) documents were authentic. They simply weren't willing
to come to conclusions that required an inference that some
presumptively respectable person involved would contest, especially if
those conclusions would involve accusing someone of something. They
accumulated and laid out the facts that were there in black and white,
drew the least adventurous and provocative conclusions possible, and
left everything else unsettled.
To my mind that's simply the way respectable establishment-type people
operate. They're cautious and very much concerned with maintaining
institutional consensus, and they want to say things that fit smoothly
into the practicalities of administering large institutions.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Jan 13 15:46:30 2005
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:46:30 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Revised: Occupy a Moslem country, put women in combat
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 450
Lines: 70
It's interesting that it's now the Army that's pushing for women in
combat. Presumably Army planners have become acclimatized to a feminist
filter on everything, it's part of what they understand as their basic
mission, and at this point every officer in a position to influence
anything is ready to support whatever official feminism demands (other
officers will have seen their careers come to an end).
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jan 14 10:14:06 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:14:06 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: rd
Subject: Re: Conservatism and the antidiscrimination principle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1066
Lines: 46
Hello,
The Hispanics aren't going to run the world and the goal isn't to
preserve a healthy functional Hispanic culture that's authoritative in
its sphere so that Hispanics can be happy and productive living by it.
Hispanics and other minorities like blacks are going to end up even
worse off than the whites. The function of saying they can have all the
ethnic cohesion etc. they want is to disrupt existing arrangements in
which whites mostly run things and white standards mostly apply. The
point of destroying white dominance and culture, which is the culture
that's worked best, isn't a different ethnic hierarchy but an ethnic
mishmash in which no culture is functional so experts and bureaucratic
functionaries have to run everything and have unlimited power because in
the absence of functional cultural coherence nothing can run itself and
everything has to be supervised by the higher-ups. It's indeed a power
grab but not I think a specifically ethnic power grab. Hispanics etc.
are just being used as tools.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jan 14 10:31:23 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:31:23 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: t
Subject: Re: revealing article
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 859
Lines: 26
It makes me think more of America as Islam, a radically simplified
combination of Christianity and Judaism that sees no distinction between
the political community and the people of God, and declares universal
jihad for the sake of bringing divine light and order to the Dar-ul-Harb
(the "place of war," the part of the world that has not yet been brought
into submission to the will of God and accordingly no legitimate order
obtains). Gelernter is sensitive to the criticism and responds to it at
length (basically, by saying "America good, Islam bad).
jk
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:01:42PM -0500, t wrote:
> Jim:
>
> America as Judaism? What do you make of this? It seems to confirm the
> Rao/Ferrara/Droleskey/Fahey/Jones view of America, no?
>
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11901043_1
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jan 15 11:15:10 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:15:10 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: rd
Subject: Re: Conservatism and the antidiscrimination principle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 925
Lines: 85
I think it's important to maintain fairness and equity as ultimate
standards, and I think it's a bad idea to present things as simply a
racial conflict -- let's keep the blacks, hispanics etc. from getting
our stuff etc. So while I agree we should say that the current situation
makes the government burden some groups for the benefit of others, and
that's wrong, I think it's important to emphasize that the ultimate
issue is something more general than who's doing whom. Current rules are
tyrannical and destructive because they keep people from making their
own lives by choosing to live and work with the people they find it most
rewarding to deal with. Instead they have government functionaries
decide how we live. That destroys self-government. And in the long run
that's not good for anybody except the class self-interest of lawyers,
functionaries, various experts etc.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Jan 20 21:31:51 2005
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:31:51 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Christianity And Rights
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2762
Lines: 60
> Resolved: The Christian component in the Western and American tradition is essentially harmful to our politics.
This strikes me as an odd thought. You might as well debate
Resolved: The Western and American component of James Kalb is
essentially bad for his character.
For all I know that might be true, if anybody could figure out what it
means.
The West is simply the group of societies that were once part of
Catholic Christendom, and the offspring of those societies. So how can
you separate the West from Christianity? In what sense other than purely
genetic and geographical would it be the West? Aren't basic
understandings of reality and goodness essential to a civilization?
I don't think it's even that easy to separate Classical culture from
Christianity. Christianity began in the Roman Empire, it grew up in the
Roman Empire, its formative languages were Greek and Latin, and the
Roman Empire converted to Christianity in accordance with its own
internal needs. So why view Christianity as external to Classical
culture any more than say Plato and Aristotle? (As to the Germans, they
become civilized by becoming Christian. Those weren't two separate
events.)
I think the irreducible value of each individual is indeed an important
contribution to our politics. I have no idea why anyone would think that
conception is at odds with hierarchy, feudalism or whatnot (i
mentioned feudalism). If I'm in a room with a bunch of rocks that isn't
hierarchy. Hierarchy, and the loyalty and mutual personal obligation on
which feudalism is based, can only exist and matter if each of the
parties has individual value.
Beyond that, I think it's important that Christianity provides or
provided an overall transcendent common order within which particular
peoples, institutions, political societies and whatnot could exist for
hundreds of years and understand themselves as part of the same social
world while retaining considerable relative autonomy and without a
formal system of compulsion. I'm not sure what could have replaced that.
Before Christianity there were divine emperors and after Christianity
there's the EU. Why are those things so great?
I think the transnational Church hierarchy was very helpful in giving
institutional expression to the principle that force is not the essence
of community or truth. It seems to me that the specifically Christian
doctrine of the Incarnation is essential to the Church hierarchy as it
has existed, because that doctrine establishes the non-obvious point
that divine authority can be concretely and identifiably present here
and now among us, and so establish a common moral world and standard of
truth, without possessing direct political power.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 12:23:25 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:23:25 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Fw: Letter from President Summers on women and science
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 575
Lines: 208
Not quite. I don't think he'd knuckle under to any pressure group
whatever that threatened to make things difficult for him. At Stalin's
show trials they didn't just confess because they were afraid but
because they thought the Party really was in the end necessarily right
so there could not possibly be good grounds for taking a stand against
it. I think it really is fundamental to his view of things that
"discrimination" is a stupefying horror that has to be utterly rooted
out no matter institutional or intellectual what.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 15:21:41 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:21:41 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Trifkovic and Islam
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 464
Lines: 20
If you stick "Qur'an" and "uncreated" into google you'll get a bunch of
Muslim sources that say the same things. My recollection is that the
issue arose early on and was mostly settled in favor of "uncreated"
although the other view has survived among some fairly minor groups.
Doesn't some view vaguely like this also exist in Orthodox Judaism, or
at least the view that God made the world in accordance with Torah?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 15:24:47 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:24:47 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Trifkovic and Islam
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 181
Lines: 22
Neither Hitler nor Lenin came up with anything people could live by for
1400 years. I don't think a pure monster could have done that.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 17:56:28 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:56:28 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 460
Lines: 16
Is it really possible to define power without reference to a prior
standard of the good? After all, I have the power, simply by turning
about face, to force not only the whole of humanity but the whole
universe to shift its position with reference to me by 180 degree. I
force everything that used to be in front of me to be behind me. How can
I decide whether that means I am stupendously powerful without reference
to a prior standard of what matters?
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 20:58:56 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:58:56 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1548
Lines: 59
The "does Burke work" question seems to relate to whether an existential
transcendent is psychologically necessary. I'm inclined to think that
it's psychologically necessary if it's logically necessary, since man
deals with the world conceptually and therefore in the long run
logically. I think that's i's "Hegelian" notion that in the long run
ideas rule.
I also think that you do need an existential transcendent. I have about
40 pages of noodling basically on that topic, and whether as a practical
matter that means you need a Pope, in the current Telos:
http://jkalb.org/node/1059
Burke agreed:
http://www.bartleby.com/24/3/7.html
"Persuaded that all things ought to be done with reference, and
referring all to the point of reference to which all should be directed,
they think themselves bound, not only as individuals in the sanctuary of
the heart, or as congregated in that personal capacity, to renew the
memory of their high origin and cast; but also in their corporate
character to perform their national homage to the institutor, and
author, and protector of civil society; without which civil society man
could not by any possibility arrive at the perfection of which his
nature is capable, nor even make a remote and faint approach to it."
There seems to be a tendency in recent English conservative thought to
reject that view. You can just get by on habit or intimations or natural
piety or whatnot. To my mind that makes recent English conservative
thought basically useless.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 24 21:03:12 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:12 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 247
Lines: 52
But nothing of what Nietzsche says makes sense unless you have a solid
idea of what power is. My point is that you can't know what it is
without a prior idea of what matters -- i.e., what the good is.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jan 25 11:14:46 2005
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:14:46 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 523
Lines: 73
I dunno. You can view what the Nazis did as an attempt to make kicking
*ss the basis of moral and social order and it didn't work out. On a
more literary front, Sade's works always seemed to me a kind of sci-fi.
Not real world. Also he observes here and there that cruelties etc.
become less and less satisfying as time goes on because to the extent
you have succeeded in suppressing the transcendent moral order by
violating it you've deprived your cruelties of significance.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jan 25 11:34:35 2005
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:34:35 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 824
Lines: 85
We'll see how well Japan does now the Tenno isn't a god. Old habits die
slowly in a tightly-integrated insular society but it does happen when
their original spiritual setting is done away with. My impression (I've
got some slight family connections to the place) is that they've got
some basic problems at the heart of their culture now. Why, basically,
should anyone go along with what's expected of him? Once you're involved
in something no doubt you go along, it's too dififcult otherwise, but
why step into it? Why should women marry? Why have children? It seems
that at those basic points where some can avoid the network of
obligations by making a choice that's open to them people are tending
more to make that choice. How much can that happen and Japan still be
Japan?
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jan 25 13:10:06 2005
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:10:06 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Inferiority and superiority
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1490
Lines: 125
To speak of "the existence of some transcendent being that says you must
all do things a certain way" makes it sound as if it's Islam that is at
issue.
I think it does matter whether a society has an established and at least
conventionally authoritative format for recognizing the transcendent,
even if the format is not quite taken literally but understood as a
possibility that must be respected, or something some people believe in
or half believe in that everyone ought to go along with, or a concrete
inherited way of symbolizing a mystery in things and in particular in
obligation that goes beyond what can be demonstrated but has to be
respected.
To what extent did pre-60s Americans *really* believe in vague generic
Protestantism, whatever such a belief would amount to, or pre-60s
Englishmen *really* believe in Anglicanism and the specialness of the
monarch? Still, the established status of such things (in the American
case shown by such things as school prayer and public rhetoric)
mattered. It meant politics and social life had to be thought of as part
of a larger setting that everyone was called to respect. Get rid of that
setting by taking the established transcendent away and politics and the
nature of political attachment is changed.
Ibn Khaldun is I think the classic analyst of pure group cohesion as a
principle of political order. He says it might last three generations.
We will see what happens with Japan Inc.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jan 30 08:23:07 2005
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:23:07 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: German woman told she must work as prostitute to continue to receive state benefits
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1040
Lines: 37
An interesting aspect of the situation is the bureaucratic rationality
involved. The stated reason for the result is that given the governing
legal norms and the complexities of the situations to which they must be
applied it was impossible to make a principled distinction that would
stand up between prostitution and other lines of work.
The point is that a bureaucrat isn't supposed to bring his own thoughts,
feelings, personal history and commitments into the decision. He's
supposed to base what he does on explicit reasoning from stated
standards. It's a sort of concretized Kantianism -- you give up all
personal interest and base action solely on principles that can be given
a consistent rational universal application, and that's what makes you
moral. So in a way it makes sense for this thing to come up first in
Germany, they're so earnest and dutiful. Still, bureaucracy and the
anti-discrimination principle aren't just German and neither is the idea
of having women in common.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jan 30 20:00:39 2005
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:00:39 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: eg
Subject: Re: The marvel of Islamic architecture
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 475
Lines: 54
FWIW, Spengler said the Pantheon was the first mosque, designed (he
thought) by a Syrian.
Still, there's some beautiful Islamic calligraphy. I don't like it as
much as the Chinese, but still the concentration on the written word and
the downgrading of pictures channeled artistic talent in directions that
weren't altogether futile. Also there's Persian poetry that sounds
wonderful. It's said that's true of the Koran as well.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jan 31 10:31:43 2005
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:31:43 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: ci
Subject: Re: The marvel of Islamic architecture
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 417
Lines: 119
It's not that easy to come up with something that's still going to be
alive and kicking after 1400 years. It's an odd situation though. The
top Muslim thinkers and writers have generally been heterodox in some
way, adherents of Sufism or whatnot. So it would probably take a lot of
thought to say just what the relationship between the religion and the
culture has been.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Feb 2 07:35:45 2005
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:35:45 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: James Carroll on the Iraqi elections
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1050
Lines: 31
He really is out of his mind, but I guess he's built a career on
slanderous babble. There's a market for it.
Speaking of journalistic weirdness, did you see the business about the
CNN guy saying the US military had assassinated a dozen journalists?
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html
I really get the impression at times that public life in the sense of
rational discussion subject in principle to an objective standard has
come to an end. I can't say that Bush and his fans are strong on that
either.
Even Wikipedia has its limits -- for some reason I just ran into their
article on The Bell Curve. It seems an example of a topic where sweet
reasonableness and NPOV don't really apply, at least for most people who
get involved.
jk
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:07:03AM -0500, la wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/01/train_wreck_of_an_election/
>
>
> You don't have to be a supporter of Bush's policy to see this guy is nuts.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Feb 2 17:26:13 2005
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:26:13 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: James Carroll on the Iraqi elections
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 690
Lines: 67
Actually in fairness I looked at the Wikipedia discussion tab for the
TBC article and someone said that a lot of POV (jargon for "biased" or
at least "not unbiased") stuff had been inserted that had to be edited.
So the piece is recognized by at least some of the regulars as work in
progress with some issues.
I suppose it's difficult for a Wikipedia article to take a very
different overall line from what passes for the public scholarly
consensus. Also the Wikipedia article is not as bad as most of the
"scholarly" commentary that turns up if you stick "bell curve," "murray"
and "herrnstein" into Google. The latter is really horrifying.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 3 07:57:03 2005
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:57:03 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: James Carroll on the Iraqi elections
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 347
Lines: 60
It's so bizarre. From one of the conservative bloggers (Captain's
Quarters?) it appears that previously he had said that journalists had
been arrested and tortured by the US military.
When did this all start? The first time I was struck by the phenomenon
was Donna Brazille after the 2000 election.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 3 08:11:07 2005
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:11:07 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: James Carroll on the Iraqi elections
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 599
Lines: 91
Agreed it's not PC and really can't be PC because PC involves silencing
the obvious. What I had in mind is that if the weight of generally known
publicly reputable scholarly voices say something and say there's no
legitimacy at all to the opposite view then that will define NPOV. An
example would be the definition of "jihad."
jk
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:37:44PM -0500, la wrote:
> Well, generally I have not noticed Wikipedia to be PC at all. Its views
> are sort of standard views that once would have been common. That's one
> of its attractions.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 3 14:33:09 2005
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:33:09 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Anarcho-fascist?!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2216
Lines: 52
Liberalism as a system of thought obviously advances the power of
particular classes. In principle it dissolves the authority and the
ability to function of all social institutions except the market and
universal neutral expert administrators. It therefore advances the power
of people with lots of money and the expert and managerial classes. (I
think there's a conflict within liberalism between those classes.)
Still, it doesn't make sense to see liberalism as simply a front for
pre-existing groups based on some totally different type of solidarity.
On that analysis it might make sense to look at it as a big Jewish plot.
Liberalism is class-based, meaning the groups who find it in their
interest to back it are defined by reference to social functioning.
Social functioning though is cooperative, purposeful and to a large
extent voluntary, so it involves understandings with regard to how
things work and should work, what's rational, effective, and suitable
for dissolving conflicts and establishing a reliable basis of
cooperation.
The liberal answer to those questions I think is basically that all
desires are essentially equally worthy (they're equally desires so they
equally confer value), and the rational and reliable way to reduce
conflict, ensure social cooperation and maximize value is social
technology, meaning comprehensive rational expert management of all
things for economic/hedonistic ends. The comprehensive managers can
recognize that not everything can be managed (hence the space for
markets), but they try to reduce people to atomic individuals or even
sub-individual bundles of capacities and desires, and also to turn them
into individuals of a certain kind so that they will be easier to manage
in a rational thoroughgoing way. Hence, e.g., the abolition of marriage
and the campaigns against "intolerant" desires that are hard to bring
smoothly into the system.
So while it's true that people push liberalism because it involves their
class interests, that doesn't exclude the role of ideas because the
classes are defined in a social-functional and therefore conceptual way.
As I think someone said, in the long run ideas rule.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 3 20:06:14 2005
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:06:14 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Anarcho-fascist?!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 310
Lines: 66
Agreed that's what happened in the '60s. It seems to me that if you say
freedom is the ultimate political value that's where the discussion is
likely to end up because the non-liberal aspects aren't able to explain
and justify themselves but it took a long time.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 3 22:07:49 2005
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:07:49 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: i
Subject: Re: Anarcho-fascist?!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 752
Lines: 16
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:24:48PM -0800, i wrote:
> What are the key philosophical differences between a liberalism that accepts the right of non-liberal aspects of society to exist, and one that doesn't?
>
> Peter F. Drucker calls the latter "totalitarian liberalism."
I think of the former as less rational if more reasonable. It's less
systematic and more accepting of ordinary commonsensical understandings
of what things are. The acceptance is often uncritical or unconscious
even though all forms of liberalism value reason and explicitness.
That's why moderate liberalism finds it hard to give defend itself
effectively when the Left says e.g. family and gender are oppressive so
they've got to go.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 4 10:04:22 2005
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:04:22 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: ci
Subject: Re: Anarcho-fascist?!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 981
Lines: 111
But what does principled and vocal conservatism have to stand on if
"liberty" is the ultimate political standard? It can't say that liberty
has to recognize the goods that make choice and freedom worth having
because that would make those substantive goods superior to liberty and
you wouldn't have liberalism any more. You'd have a political order
based on certain substantive goods instead.
So I think that in a liberal society conservatism has to argue that true
liberty has to accept limitations so it won't self-destruct by e.g.
destroying the family and turning young people into drugged-out zombies,
semi-functional obsessive compulsive neurotics, roaming feral gangs or
whatnot. But you can never prove that any particular concrete measure,
e.g., funding the l Summers Center for Women's Science by Women at
Harvard, will cause social self-destruction. So it'll be hard to rebut
the presumption that more liberation is good.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Feb 7 09:36:47 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:36:47 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: A golden oldie from Kalb, 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 305
Lines: 17
It's a problem. You're intellectually respectable only if the views you
present seem comprehensible and arguable given accepted basic
assumptions about man and the world. So I think whiggery is the only
possible intellectually respectable conservatism today.
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Feb 7 09:49:29 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:49:29 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: bl
Subject: Re: Valentine's Day
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 767
Lines: 17
I really think serious political discussion has come to an end. I think
the Bushies are insane and their opponents are worse.
Part of it is the whole complex of things that gives us PC. People can
only think with their own minds. If they tell you "you can't
discriminate" then that means that you can't take into account or even
admit the existence of things like racial and sexual differences that
obviously matter a lot. Also, you have to join in this huge effort to
pretend they don't matter and rearrange the whole world so it looks like
it would if they didn't matter. You have to pretend to think about
things in a made-up way that doesn't have much connection to the way
things are. That's not good practice in realism and just makes fantasies
multiply.
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 18 09:09:06 2005
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:09:06 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Peretz: Liberalism is "bookless and dying."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 545
Lines: 18
He's right there's no liberal thought but that's not a particular
liberal problem.
The Left has won. That means the Left has collapsed, because its basic
project of destroying what was inherited has come to an end, and the
Right has also collapsed, because the attempt to stop the further
advance of the Left no longer has anything to protect. We have to start
from the beginning.
jk
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:31:50AM -0500, la wrote:
> http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=peretz022805
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Feb 20 21:46:10 2005
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:46:10 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: dm
Subject: Re: A question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1591
Lines: 61
Hi and thanks for the note.
Actually it's been years since I read it. I believe it's from an
Australian magazine, New Dawn. I don't recall the author if it doesn't
say on the file. (If it doesn't say it's quite possible I never knew.)
When I read it I found it quite fascinating. I hadn't run into the
Integral Traditionalists before. I think it's true that the opposition
to progressives around us today is overly conventional and doesn't go
nearly deep enough. The problems of advanced liberal society or whatever
you call the present situation are absolutely fundamental
("metaphysical"), and writers like Guenon or Evola who insist on that
and don't care what anybody else thinks are very helpful in getting out
of the rut we've all fallen into. Some of their comments and symbols are
extremely illuminating.
For all that I have some problems with them:
1. I don't take the cyclical theory as the ultimate account of things.
2. I don't think there's a single universal primordial tradition or
transcendentally unified religion (Schuon). You can't get behind the
actual existent religions and you have to make a choice.
3. I don't take the idea of esoteric initiatic tradition seriously.
Dunno if those comments help. You do have some interesting reading in
front of you though. And I'm glad my site had something useful to you on
it.
jk
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 01:03:52PM -0500, Daniel Matthews wrote:
> Hi Mr. Kalb,
>
> I just finished reading "The Divine Concept and the Crisis of the
> Modern World," which you have on your website
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Feb 21 19:28:26 2005
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:28:26 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Bcc: jbk@kalb.ath.cx
Subject: Re: Kant
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2793
Lines: 57
The influence is pervasive and so hard to summarize. Some points that
come to mind:
1. Since you can't know things in themselves the objects of our
knowledge -- that is to say, the world of our experience -- are largely
constructed by the human mind. Kant of course thought that happened
through the application of particular specifiable categories of thought
(like time, space and causality) to sense experience. It follows from
that view as he held it that knowledge remains objective at least in the
sense that it's the same for all rational human beings. But one could
also claim that the categories aren't fixed once for all but depend on
time or place or choice. So Kantianism sets the stage for radical
historicism, social constructivism, and the view that since we choose
our scheme of categories it's really human choice -- in effect, will and
power -- that constructs reality.
2. Since all that is given to us is sense and the categories of our own
thought nothing transcending us can tell us anything or be relevant to
what we know or do. That state of affairs does away with God and
substantive revelation, although the concept of God can remain as a
regulatory concept that stands for the ideal completion of our system of
morality and knowlege. So God turns out to be a human construction for
the purposes of human life. Hence liberal religion.
3. Morality based on substantive understandings of what's good that
aren't simply a matter of subjective will or taste becomes impossible,
since all we have is sense, which simply is what it is but points
nowhere, and the formal categories of our own thought. The only possible
basis of morality therefore becomes the categorical imperative, the
principle of acting in accordance with the formal concept of lawfulness,
meaning that we should act on principles that we are able coherently to
will to apply universally. There are problems with that view: it's hard
to apply, it's not at all clear that it gives unequivocal results, and
it's hard to see why on that totally formal understanding of morality
anyone would act morally. So by being hyper-rationalistic it probably
leads either to skepticism or dogmatism. Also, it seems that one effect
of the view has been the tendency to extract more and more demands from
content-free concepts like freedom and equality, to insist on applying
those concepts universally, and to sacrifice substantive goods to them.
I don't know much of anything about German neo-Kantianism.
jk
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:48:03PM -0500, la wrote:
> Do you understand Kant? Can you explain concisely what his influence on European thought was, which people are always indictating was enormous, but which I don't understand because I don't get the core idea.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Feb 22 19:31:32 2005
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:31:32 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Did Kant deny objectively knowable truth?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4256
Lines: 134
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:52:58PM -0500, la wrote:
> I'm not a student of Kant and I'll have to leave it to Jim to reply, if he's interested.
Will do, not that anyone else is likely to find this interesting.
> Phenomena in Kant are subjective, but only in his structured conception of subjectivity.
>
> You can't take what he says in the sense it would have in the commonplace conception of subjectivity as unstructured.
Agreed.
> la wrote:
> What is Kant's notion of the noumenon about other than saying that we cannot know things as they really are? We only know their phenomena, i.e., that which we directly experience. This is the same as saying that we cannot know transcendent realities, which is the position of liberalism.
Kant might say we can know the system of our experience, which I suppose
is a system of things, as it really is, because it exists as our
experience. It's that system that he would say the natural sciences
study. He would also say though that we can't know transcendent
realities like God although the concept of such things is necessary as a
guide to our strivings.
> Jim has a very interesting explanation of how the categorical imperative is a constructed form of moral truth, a substitute for transcendent moral truth.
Kant's whole approach is to try to show how we can get by without
transcendent truths (truths that aren't just a matter of our experience
and its necessary implicit logical attributes and preconditions). He
thought our experience has necessary presuppositions and logical
structure that's sufficient to make it a reliable ordered system so we
can treat it as objective. Our acts of will also have logical attributes
that he believes suffice to define a determinate morality. So for Kant
there's nothing transcendent about moral truth.
> Then Jim Kalb doesn't know what he's talking about.
Certainly true, but not yet shown in this connection.
> Kant didn't deny objectively knowable truth; he just thought one
> can to conceptualize it around the necessary structure of
> appearance rather than the ding-an-sich or thing-in-itself.
I think that's so, but what you're saying I think is that he came up
with a new definition of objectively knowable truth that made its
"objectivity" a matter of fixed and uniform features of the human mind
rather than any connection with what things are in themselves. That's
good enough for some people but not others (Kleist for example). I think
in the long run it causes trouble since I'm not sure why people should
continue to believe that the categories of Kant's thoughts are the
necessary eternal categories for everybody's thought.
>He was trying to exorcise Hume's mischievous skepticism (which Hume interpreted to conservative political ends, though other interpretations invite themselves), not create skepticism of his own.
Hume took one (British, empirical, tradition-based) approach to
exorcising mischievous features of skepticism, Kant another. One may
doubt that either put things on a sufficiently solid basis.
> Kant also believed very definitely in objective moral standards.
Very very definitely.
> la wrote:
> Jim Kalb was telling me yesterday about Kant and his denial of objectively knowable truth, and the huge influence of that idea in European thought. The European spiritual and political sickness goes far back. The American idea of human freedom based in nature and nature's God is quite alien to the Euros. In one form or another, they only believe in will and power, even if, as leftists, the will and power they believe in is that of the omnicompetent provider state.
It seems to me that once one accepts that the forms of our thought
construct reality, including moral reality, and one rejects the idea
that such things have to do with a nature of things that's independent
of us and transcends us (all of which Kant did), you're going to have
trouble because it won't be clear how it can be known that the forms of
our thought are a priori fixed. Also, I don't think a purely formal
criterion for morality gives results that are determinate enough and it
can be used to support all sorts of craziness.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Feb 26 18:11:01 2005
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:11:01 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: t
Subject: Re: your Murray piece
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1120
Lines: 106
No doubt you're right, although I don't use any theological arguments.
Really, it's sort of a pragmatist argument: in order to view something
as truth we have to view it as the thing inquiry is going to converge
on, and we can't be confident inquiry will converge unless there's some
way at some point to get some answers.
Otherwise, maybe the issue is whether Murray's idea about principles
that have the rationality of law because they enduringly solve the
practical problem of living together even though they have no
theological content, or at least no theological content that takes a
position on the religious issues that actually give rise to the
pluralism that exists, makes sense and if so on what conditions.
It would be interesting to know what he would have thought if he had
lived longer. To me his view seems an unstable balance of forces. The
1st amendment works as long as you can implicitly assume natural law and
a basically Christian understanding of things. That ain't what we got.
Thanks for the stuff you sent (although I haven't looked at it yet).
jk
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Feb 27 18:16:08 2005
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:16:08 -0500
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: question about Catholic doctrine about "divinization"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 924
Lines: 25
I don't know if that way of speaking enters into a formal doctinal
definition. Tautologically when man is adopted by God as his son then
man becomes divine at least in the sense that he's been adopted as God's
son.
You might look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis if you want to
pursue this further.
jk
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 03:34:32PM -0500, la wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> A question. This is from John Paul's encyclical, "The Gospel of Life." See the last, bolded sentence. In your understanding, is this correct Catholic doctrine, that when man is adopted by God as his son, he "becomes divine"? Is Gregory of Nyssa considered authoritative on this?
>
> http://lifeissues.net/writers/doc/gol/gol4.html
>
>
> Man surpasses his nature: mortal, he becomes immortal; perishable, he becomes imperishable; fleeting, he becomes eternal; human, he becomes divine".105
>
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.org
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.