November 2017 – Page 6 – Maverick Philosopher

Human Perversity

One seizes upon a present good, sensuous pleasure, even though it is transient and ultimately unsatisfactory, over a merely possible lasting future good to be had by foregoing the present good.

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Torch Songs

"A torch song is a sentimental love song, typically one in which the singer laments an unrequited or lost love, where one party is either oblivious to the existence of the other, or where one party has moved on." (Wikipedia)

Sarah Vaughn, Broken Hearted Melody. Nostalgic video. Fine understated guitar work.

Timi Yuro, Hurt. When I first heard her back in '61, I thought she had to be black. She's not black, but of Italian extraction: Rosemarie Timotea Auro.

Billie Holliday, The Very Thought of You

Roy Orbison, In Dreams. "The best voice in the business," said E. P. See how many of the sidemen you can identify.

Peggy Lee, Oh You Crazy Moon.

Ketty Lester, Love Letters.

Etta James, At Last

Lenny Welch, Since I Fell For You

Elvis Presley, I Can't Help Falling in Love with You

Kay Starr, Stormy Weather

Julie London, When I Fall in Love

Gogi Grant, The Wayward Wind. I've enjoyed this song since I was six years old. Ill take Lady Gogi over Lady Gaga any day.

Not a torch song, but the video is cute:

Jay and the Americans, Come a Little Bit Closer

UPDATE (11/5)

Ed contributes:

You posted a very fine 1938 recording of ‘The Very Thought Of You’ by Billie Holiday. If I am not mistaken, the sax is Lester Young (‘prez’), who Kerouac worshipped, and who supposedly gave young Jack (in 1943) his first taste of the wacky baccy. See this.

There is a London connection here. The song was written by Ray Noble, and first recorded (with Al Bowlly, vocal) in London April 21, 1934. Noble was born in Brighton in 1903, studied at the Royal Academy of Music, and become one of the great British band leaders of the 1930s. He later moved to New York. His well-known ‘Cherokee’ was an obsession of Charlie ‘Bird’ Parker, who made it the basis of his 1945 composition Ko-Ko. As I am sure you know.

Your musical catholicity amazes me, Ed. Rare is the hombre who can dig both Hank Williams and Charlie Parker, not to mention Robert Johnson and Robert Schumann.

It Speaks Volumes

Disgusting but true: Bush 41 (George H. W. Bush) voted for Hillary and his son Bush 43 (George W. Bush) for none of the above. Call them Cozy Little Club firsters. These 'conservatives' seem to think that conserving their cozy cocoon trumps tackling real problems. What these bow-tie boys value are their privileges and perquisites and their exclusive little soirees in wood-paneled Beltway clubs.

Among Trump's many accomplishments, the three most significant so far are that he put paid to the Bush dynasty, brought about the fall of the corrupt House of Clinton, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia.

And that is just the start of the list. Illegal immigration is way down; the economy is way up; religious liberty has been defended . . . .

Trump is a rude and bracing blast of fresh air in American politics. He is not a lawyer in a profession lousy with lawyers. He is not a career politician. He doesn't need the job. No one owns him. He is ready, willing, and able to fight. He doesn't give a rat's ass about being politically correct. He presents a new and healthy direction for the country: enlightened nationalism.

For the record, I did not support his nomination. But when he got the nod, I came around, like every sane conservative.

Joseph Epstein on Leon Wieseltier

Ouch!

What Trump Could Say to Obama

"You didn't build that!"

We should never allow ourselves to forget all the stupid things Obama said, Obama, a man hailed as brilliant by that arbiter of intellect, the illustrious Chris Mathews. Does the latter still get a thrill up his leg when he thinks of the man? Or maybe the thrill is gone.

Rejoice I say unto you, rejoice that Obama in a pant suit, "Felonia von Pant Suit" (Kurt Schlichter) was handed her walking papers by Donald J. Trump.

Paul Gottfried on Propositionalism

Here:

White nationalists are not really nationalists since they are engaged in a globalist enterprise. They are reaching beyond traditional nation states and seek to unify all peoples of a certain race, partly by demonizing other races. But propositionalists like Buckley and the neoconservative journalists are likewise involved in a global pursuit. They are not content to live in a politically diverse world among different cultures. They seek to win adherents to their political religion supposedly predicated on universal propositions. The validity of what they believe requires that it be put into practice universally, since their propositions are intended for all of humanity. This rights-based globalism is nothing new. It was practiced by the Jacobins during the French Revolution and later, and more devastatingly, by the Bolsheviks. (Emphasis added)

This passage may help focus the ongoing discussion with my Right-identitarian colleague. I don't see why I ought to accept the bolded sentence above. The sentence encapsulates an argument, which could be put like this:

1) The supposedly universal propositions are intended to hold true for all of humanity.
2) If so, then the supposedly universal propositions must be put into practice universally.
Therefore
3) The supposedly universally propositions must be put into practice universally.
Therefore
4) One can justify nation-building, exporting American/Enlightenment values, toppling dictators using military force, teaching the benighted Muslim tribalists of the Middle East the values of open inquiry, free speech, equal rights for women, etc.

The argument is unsound because we have no good reason to accept (2).

I reject (2). I say: There are propositions relating to human flourishing that are true for all humans. An example of such a proposition might be: A happy and productive human life is unlikely and perhaps impossible if one never learns to control one's appetites and emotions. (Had Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown been brought up to exercise self-control, they would be alive today. Those two brought about their own deaths by their lack of self control, and 'racism' had nothing to do with it. Harvey Weinstein is a 'white' example: had he been brought up to control his concupiscence he wouldn't be in the deep trouble he is in now. )

But such propositions, while true for all humans and in this sense true universally, are not recognized by all humans, and not presently capable of being recognized or put into practice by all humans. The attempt to impart these propositions to some groups will be futile, especially if it involves force, or can be interpreted by the group in question as a cover for an attempt to dominate or control them for ulterior motives.

So I distinguish two questions. One is whether the propositions in question are universal. The other is whether they are capable of being recognized and implemented by all humans under present conditions. The answer to the first is Yes; the answer to the second is No. So one cannot infer the requirement that the propositions be put into practice universally from the the fact that they are universal. (2), then, is false.

The bolded sentence involves a confusion. Read it again: The validity of what they believe requires that it be put into practice universally, since their propositions are intended for all of humanity.

The sentence embodies a non sequitur. Consider this proposition: A government contributory to human well-being upholds the value of religious liberty and tolerates dissent on religious matters. This proposition is essential to the American founding and is one of the expressions of the hard-won wisdom of the Founders.

But not every ethnic or racial group on the face of the earth is ready for this universally valid truth, and perhaps some of these groups will never be ready for it. To impose it on them would be folly and elicit only blind reaction. On this point the neo-cons had it wrong. The benighted must be left to their fates. But it doesn't follow that the proposition in question is true only for those of European ancestry. It is true for all. Analogy: the truths of mathematics are true for all, even for those who cannot understand them and put them to work. First-graders cannot understand Rolle's Theorem, but it is true for them too. Those who know no physics are just as subject to its laws as those who do.

If one rejects even a moderate propositionalism, what will one put in its place? A racially purified state along National Socialist lines?

There is a reason why a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies when they hear alt-right and neo-reactionary talk. And this despite the fact that most of what one hears about the alt-right is mindless, psychologically-projective, leftist nonsense. Leftist scum use 'white supremacist' and 'alt-right' as semantic bludgeons and they should be condemned for their scurrilousness. Nevertheless, most of us become justifiably concerned when we hear talk of Blut und Boden.

As for heebie-jeebies, that puts me in mind of 'hebe,' a slur word for a Jew. The anti-semitism of alt-righties — not all of them of course — should also make a morally decent person nervous. If nothing else, the Alt-Right has a PR problem. They won't get anywhere politically if their rhetoric includes 'blood and soil.' I guarantee it.

Some words and phrases are not candidates for semantic rehabilitation.

Friday Cat Blogging! Trans-Species Cultural Appropriation

No day without cultural appropriation!

Latest Georgetown University Outrage

More proof that leftists are termites:

Georgetown’s website proclaims it is “the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States” and is “deeply rooted in the Catholic faith.” One campus group is learning, however, Georgetown’s roots might not be deep enough.

Love Saxa is a recognized student group on the Georgetown campus, and it exists “to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students.” Given the emphasis the Catholic Church puts on these issues (for example, see here and here), and Love Saxa’s alignment with church doctrine, one might believe it safe to assume Love Saxa is squarely within safe territory at a Catholic university.

But, oh, the perils of assumption. Love Saxa is in danger of being stripped of its status as an official student group. Its offense: holding to a Catholic view of human sexuality.

What can you do? Well, if you are a GU alumnus or alumna, make sure GU does not get one penny from you. When they call for a contribution, explain why you are withholding your donation.

You can't reason with termites, but money will get their attention.

Islam: A Giant Step Backward for Humanity

So far, everything I've read by William Kilpatrick on this depressing topic has been good.

Crooked Hillary

My title is the first instance of my using the expression 'Crooked Hillary.' I now feel fully justified in using it.

I now hand off to Donna Brazile, Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC.

I am having a hard time resisting another slug at the NeverTrumpers. But resist temptation I will. I just deleted a couple of sentences of invective laced with obscenity. It is hard to watch the destruction of our great Republic and not get especially angry at the bow-tied do-nothings. Parlano molto, ma fanno poco.

I preach self-control, so I'd better set a good example.

Free Speech: PragerU Sues Google

It is surely an outrage that Google would limit access to PragerU videos on YouTube given their high quality and educational value. So it is good news that Dennis Prager is punching back with a lawsuit:

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, details upwards of 50 PragerU educational videos that YouTube has, in PragerU’s view, unjustifiably slapped with “restricted mode” or “demonetization” filters, violating its First Amendment right to free speech.

What is not clear, however, is how the First Amendment comes into this. As I understand the free speech clause of the First Amendment,it protects the citizen against the federal government. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . . ."

Google and its subsidiary YouTube, however, are in the private sector.

If I don't allow your comment to appear on my weblog, that is no violation of your First Amendment rights. You have no First Amendment rights here. This is private property. It is the same as if you came into my house spouting leftist drivel. I'd throw you out. Why should I give some macro-aggressive destructive leftist a forum?

Google could argue similarly: why should they give a forum to the 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'homophobic,' etc. views of Dennis Prager and his associates?

Note the difference between Google and Cal Berkeley. If Alan Dershowitz is prevented from speaking there by Antifa thugs, he could argue with some plausibility that since Cal Berkeley is the recipient of federal monies, he does have First Amendment rights there.

But it will take rather more involved legal reasoning for Prager's lawyers to make their case.

There are a number of wickedly difficult issues here.

All the political issues are rooted in philosophical conundra. My metaphilosophy, however, teaches that the problems of philosophy are, all of them, insoluble. Ergo, etc.

A Reference Puzzle

Ed submits the following:

Suppose I am looking at a crowd of people and cry ‘there is a man in the crowd!’. Well very likely, and clearly I have some man in mind. But the predicate ‘is a man in the crowd’ is not just true of him, but of every man in the crowd. So what I have said is true of each of the men, at least in one sense of ‘true of’.

Yet on the other hand. I go on to say ‘he is wearing a red scarf’. And suppose three men are wearing red scarves. So what I say is true of just three men, but still more than one. Finally I say ‘the man is carrying a poster of Che’, and suppose only one red scarved man is carrying such a poster. So it is now clear who I am talking about. But wasn’t I talking about the same man all along? So in another sense of ‘true of’, my initial statement ‘there is a man in the crowd’ was true of just one man, namely the one in the red scarf, carrying the Che poster.

Difficult. It is this sort of consideration that led Sommers (and Brandom and Chastain and probably others) to suppose that some existentially quantified sentences ‘refer’. Geach disagreed, he had a famous and very bitter dispute with Sommers in the TLS, although I haven’t been able to find this.

You see a man in a crowd, wearing a red scarf, and carrying a poster of Che. You don't see some man or other, but a definite man, one and the same man singled out in a series of visual perceptions. You exclaim, 'There is a man in the crowd' and your utterance is true. Not only is it true, it records (part of) the content of your perception.

The problem, I take, it is to find a way to avoid the following contradiction: 'There is a man in the crowd' is about any man in the crowd and yet it is about exactly one man. (We are assuming that there is more than one man in the crowd.)

Perhaps something like the distinction between speaker's reference and semantic reference will help. I say to you: 'The man in the corner with champagne in his glass is the new dean.' I have managed to refer, successfully, to a particular man and draw your attention to him. Moreover, I have supplied you with a bit of correct information about him. And yet there is no man in the corner with champagne in his glass. For what there is in his glass is acqua minerale.

The reference has failed, and yet the reference has succeeded. Contradiction. Solution? The distinction just mentioned. The definite description 'The man in the corner with champagne is his glass' lacks a semantic referent which is to say: the definite description considered apart from the speaker and his intentions does not refer to anything since nothing satisfies it. But the description does have a speaker's (and a hearer's) referent.

Similarly, we can say that the existentially general sentence 'There is a man in the crowd,' considered by itself apart from the perceptual situation in which the speaker visually singles out a man with a red scarf holding a Che poster, is not about any particular man such as Manny Manischewitz. For it could just as well be about Kasimir Bonch-Osmolovsky or Giacomo Giacopuzzi. (All three gentlemen are in the crowd.) Absent this abstraction from the perceptual situation, however, the existentially general sentence is about the one definite man in the red scarf, etc.

Why Ray Monk Became a Vegan

Here:

And now I have given up eating animal products. What prompted this, however, was not concern for my health. Neither was it concern for animal welfare. It was, rather, something that I had not thought much about before: the devastating environmental effects of animal farming.

I don't have to tell my elite readers who Ray Monk is.

Language Rant: Taking Responsibility and Taking Credit

Another note for benighted journalists who have, but too often do not honor, their duty to preserve and protect the English language in all her expressive and thought-guiding glory.