The Puzzle of Dion and Theon

This puzzle, similar to Peter Geach's Tibbles the Cat in content, is unlike it in vintage. Its origin is attributed by Philo of Alexandria (30 B.C. – 45 A. D.) to Chrysippus the Stoic (c. 280 B.C. – c. 206 B. C.) What follows is my take on the puzzle. I draw heavily upon Michael B. Burke, "Dion and Theon: An Essentialist Solution to an Ancient Puzzle," The Journal of Philosophy, 1994, pp. 129-139.

DionYesterday, Dion was a whole man, but today he had his left foot successfully amputated. Yesterday, 'Theon' was introduced as a name for that proper part of Dion that consisted of the whole of Dion except his left foot. (To keep the formulation of the puzzle simple, let us assume that dualism is false and that Dion is just a living human organism.) It is clear that yesterday Dion and Theon were numerically distinct individuals, the reason being that yesterday Theon was a proper part of Dion.  (By definition of 'proper part,' if x is a proper part of y, then x is not identical to y.  And if x and y are not identical, then x and y are distinct.  Two items can be distinct without being wholly distinct.)  Now the question is which of the following is true today, after the amputation:

The Sad State of Public Discourse in an Age of Ideology

The inability to follow an argument and respond reasonably and civilly to what an author actually maintains is a mark of the present miserable state of public discourse. Even prominent conservative commentators display this inability. A recent example is the Never-Trumper and NRO contributor David French's febrile flailing at Tully Borland.  Professor Borland ignited a firestorm of controversy when he presented an argument why Alabamans ought to vote for Roy Moore. Chad McIntosh, in a fine defense of Borland, accurately restates Borland's main argument:

Comparing Moore to opponent Doug Jones, Borland argues that a Moore victory would be the lesser of the two evils in a binary election in which these are the only two viable options. Why? Well, even if Moore is guilty of sexual assault and seeking sexual relationships with girls as young as 14 some 40 years ago, as accused, that is very unlikely to have policy ramifications today, whereas Jones supports a policy of unrestricted abortion today.

Don’t be misled here: Jones supports killing a fetus up to the moment of crowning, the moment a baby exits his mother during birth. That isn’t your typical pro-choice position. That’s almost as extreme as they come. So, as Borland sees it, “either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters.” Borland therefore concludes that one is morally justified in voting for Moore, whose win would result in lesser evil.

This is a very strong argument. You will not appreciate its strength, however, unless you appreciate the grave moral evil of unrestricted abortion, abortion at any stage  of fetal development, for any reason.  Unless you are morally obtuse you will understand that the intentional killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong and that the pre- and almost-natal human beings in question are human individuals in their own right, not globs of tissue or parts of their mothers.

McIntosh again:

The closest French comes to a substantive response to Borland is in the following:

"Of course we’re always choosing between imperfect men, but there are profound differences between conventional politicians and a man who tried to rape a teenager when he was a D.A. Believe it or not, the American political ranks are chock-full of politicians who possess better character than Moore, whose pasts are far less checkered. I don’t even have to get to the difficult process of line-drawing to have confidence in declaring that Christians should not vote to put a credibly-accused child abuser in the Senate."

But this is misdirection. That the American political ranks are chock-full of politicians who possess better character than Moore is beside the point, since they aren’t running against Moore. It’s Jones running against Moore, so that is the only comparison that matters.

That's right. It's Jones against Moore, and exactly one of these two will be elected. Not both and not neither. 

It is also important to note that while character matters, policies, programs, and ideas matter even more. People of the 'Never X' mentality seem not to understand this.  French apparently thinks two terms of Hillary and all her damage to conservatism would be a fair price to pay for keeping Trump out of the White House with all the good he has already done in less than one year in office.

But suppose you are not convinced by the Borland-McIntosh argument.  Then you should at least have the decency to admit that it is a reasonable argument. But that is not what French does. He heaps abuse on Borland. See McIntosh piece for documentation.

Once More on Immigration and the Retromingent Left

One point that needs to be made over and over in the teeth of retromingent leftist incomprehension is that immigration is justified only if it benefits the host country.  Donald Trump understands this; Hillary and her ilk do not.  

This is another reason why his defeat of Hillary is cause for jubilation among those who can think straight. It is also a large part of the explanation why Trump won the 2016 election and why it is an excellent bet that he will win again in 2020, assuming that the Wirtschaftswunder he has ignited continues.

No doubt it is good for Muslims that they be allowed to flood into Germany; but what the Germans need to ask is whether there is any net benefit to them of this in-flooding.  And the same for every country.

The guiding idea here is Country First. America First is just a special case. A good government looks first to the welfare of its own citizens, just as good parents look first to the welfare of their own children.*

Good governors also understand that one cannot force the integration of worldviews in collision. Sharia and the West do not mix.

This is not 'racist' and for two reasons. First, Islam is a religion and its adherents, Muslims, do not constitute a race. Second, even if Muslims did constitute a race, there is nothing 'racist' in any plausible sense of the term about recognizing that comity presupposes commonality.

Far from being 'racist,' what I am urging is just common sense, a commodity in short supply among lefties whom I call retromingents because of their tendency to micturate on the past and its wisdom.

These 'progressives' are transgressive of tradition, and to that extent regressive. 

To say it again: there is no right to immigrate. Correlatively, there is no obligation on the part of any country to accept immigrants.  

On the growth of Europe's Muslim population, see here.

_________________

*To ward off any misunderstanding of the analogy: I am not suggesting that government stands to citizens as parents to children. 

Anti-Natalism and Demographics

I can imagine someone objecting to me as follows:

Why the careful and respectful attention to the anti-natalist writings of David Benatar and others when the West, Europe especially, is under dire existential threat from hordes of non-Western immigrants who have no intention of assimilating but aim at cultural conquest?  Anti-natalism is an expression of exhaustion and decadence.  By taking it seriously, you lend it credibility and aid and abet the decline of the West!

To answer directly: the aim of the philosopher is truth, whatever it is, whether it serves his form of life or not, whether it serves any form of life or not.

Related

The Owl of Minerva Spreads its Wings at Dusk

Nietzsche, Salvation, and the Question of the Value of Life

Saturday Night at the Oldies Guest Post: From Gospel to Rap, Part I

By X. Malcolm

Bill suggested I wrote a post on how we get from gospel music such as Richard Smallwood’s uplifting Total Praise, to the uncompromising lowness of this gem (lyrics) by West Coast rappers 2 Live Crew? What is the bridge, if any, between ‘I will lift mine eyes to the hills’ (Psalm 121) to ‘Put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole too’?

I think the whole story would be a long story, and might not be the true story, which would include the engagement between high and low culture, the history of jazz and popular music in America in the twentieth century, and the troubled relationship between African and Western musical culture. That would be too much. But I will have a stab at part of the story, as follows.

The story of rap begins with two men, in my view. The first is uncontroversial: the music of James Brown has its roots in the late 40s and early 50s, when jazz, originally a popular genre, split into a high and a low form. The high was the ‘bop’ and ‘cool’ style which emerged in the mid-1940s: a musician’s music, played at an impossible tempo, with strange harmonic intervals. Opus de bop by Stan Getz (a white musician) gives you a good sense of the type. It was music to sit and listen too, as in a concert hall. It was highbrow, it was not dance, and it had little popular appeal.

The low form was Rhythm and Blues. It is generally agreed that the genre begins with ‘Flying Home’ by Lionel Hampton (1942). Here is a superb reconstruction by Spike Lee of how the number might have gone down at the Roseland Ballroom in the 1940s, in his film biography of Malcolm X. Listen out for the solo by Illinois Jacquet (0:53), the kind of honking tenor that became a staple of R&B, such as in Brown’s Chonnie Oh Chon (1957, Cleveland Lowe on tenor).

Brown began his career as a gospel singer in Georgia, after meeting Bobby Byrd, who had formed a gospel group called the Gospel Starlighters. Brown had wanted to be a preacher, fascinated by the power of the preacher over his audience, and by the flamboyance and pageantry of preachers like Sweet Daddy Grace of the United House of Prayer. Here he is playing the part in John Landis’ incomparable The Blues Brothers (1980). The hymn is ‘Let Us Go Back to the Old Landmark’, by W. Herbert Brewster. ‘Let us kneel in prayer in the old time way’. Here is a less breathless version by Clara Ward.

It is well known that Brown’s music had an influence on rap, although this was more because of the killer grooves of backing drummers such as Clyde Stubblefield and Jabo Starks. Here is Starks explaining the art of the slippery beat and the ghost note, also Clyde. Beats such as Funky Drummer (1970) were the basis of nearly all rap beat, and Brown’s work is recognised as the most sampled in hip-hop. This is well-known, I shall pass over it for now. But his style of singing (or shouting, or speaking) was also important: what Smitherman calls the songified quality of the political raps of Stokely Carmichael and especially of the ‘preaching-lecturing’ of Martin Luther King. Listen to King’s famous speech on August 28 1963, where he takes off on a middle C, drops to a B then back to C then D and then takes a long flight ending in Isaiah 40:4 ‘Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low’.

In using the semantics of tone, the voice is employed like a musical instrument with improvisation, riffs, and all kinds of playing between the notes. This rhythmic pattern becomes a kind of acoustical phonetic alphabet and gives black speech its songified or musical quality. (Talkin and Testifyin, The Language of Black America by Geneva Smitherman, 134—35)

King’s speech was at the March on Washington, when demonstrators such as Joan Baez sang negro spirituals like ‘We Shall Overcome’. (Baez is of Mexican extraction on her father's side and is a sort of vicariously oppressed person).

Malcolm-xThe second influence is Malcolm X, who did not like ‘We Shall Overcome’ at all. ‘Any time you live in the 20th century and you start walking around singing ‘We shall Overcome’, the government has failed us’. His ideology hung on two points: black separatism and black identity. The first was negative: complete separation of blacks from whites, a separate homeland for blacks, and none of this God’s children joining hands singing ‘free at last’, etc.

He thought MLK and other civil rights leaders were stooges of the white establishment, and his story of the field and the house negro is a sort of parable for their relation to the white power structure. The house Negro lived in the house, ‘close to his master’. He dressed like the master, ate the master’s food, and identified with the master. ‘So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself’, using the word ‘we’ to mean the master, and other house negroes. But the masses were the field negroes. ‘When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die’. Why were so many black people excited about a march on Washington, ‘run by whites in front of a statue of a president who has been dead for a hundred years and who didn’t like us when he was alive?’

House NegroHe rejected the religious basis of Western culture, joining the Nation of Islam in the 1940s, and changing his surname to ‘X’ from his birth name which ‘the white slavemaster’ had imposed upon his forebears. He never spoke much about music, but he would have surely rejected the symphonic Western style of Smallwood’s introduction to the gospel song as the child of a house negro. Recall that the moment of Jake’s ultimate conversion is not prompted by black music, but by a short overlay written by Elmer Bernstein in the classical idiom. ‘At one moment I needed God to touch John Belushi’, said Landis. God touches man not in the African genre of dancing and shouting but through the harmonic complexity of the western tradition? According to Malcolm, when a black man is is bragging about being a Christian, ‘he's bragging that he's a white man, or he wants to be white .. in their songs and the things they sing in church, they show that they have a greater desire to be white than anything else’.

Unlike King he rejected nonviolent civil disobedience, saying that black people were entitled to defend themselves ‘in the face of the horrific assaults and murders that black people faced on a daily basis’. ‘Bleeding should be done equally on both sides’. At one time, he espoused a form of black racism, in a sort of Manichean worldview that viewed white people as devils, with black people as the original humans. ‘Do you know what integration really means? It means intermarriage.’

His positive ideas on black identity were less clear given, as he freely admitted, that black identity had been obliterated by slavery. ‘A people without history is like a tree without roots’. To be sure, there was the identity moulded by the idiom of jazz, but this had its origins in the ‘jungle’ music of the Cotton Club. The growling trumpet of Cootie Williams is distinctive of Ellington, but it is set to scantily clad light skinned African American girl dancers apparently transported from some jungle tribe. X sought a different identity, locating it the civilisation of Egypt.

Many of his ideas were taken up by the rappers in the 1980s. The first is easy to overlook. Malcolm complained that singing was the problem of black politics. ‘This is part of what’s wrong with you – you do too much singing’. Right. Songs are just bad poems. ‘Take the music away and what you’re left with is often an awkward piece of creative writing full of lumpy syllables, cheesy rhymes, exhausted cliches and mixed metaphors,’ claims poet Simon Armitage. Rap ended that. Speech introduces a different character to music. It commands your attention, invites you to consider its meaning. The rapper is not singing to you, he is telling you something, in the manner of an aggressively young black male.

Here are rappers Public Enemy with Too black, too strong, which is to say, black coffee is strong, but only becomes weak if it is ‘integrated’ with cream. Listen out for Clyde Stubblefield’s groove 1:07. Rapper KRS-One developed a sort of rap manifesto. Like Malcolm, he recognised that civil rights is not designed to solve the problem of racism, and that rap involves ‘rethinking what you think is normal, by rethinking society’. Rappers rejected the integration that was fundamental to the golden years of American popular music. Paul Robeson sang ‘Old Man River’, written by Jerome Kern. Billy Holiday sung ‘Strange Fruit’, written by Abel Meeropol. The embrace of violence is essential to the rap of the late 1980s, but I shall discuss this later.

Thus the elements of the genre as I see them are (1) a repetitive groove sampled from the beats of Starks and Stubblefield (2) the use of speech rather than song, (3) the attitude of the genre, reflected in its aggressive style of delivery, and (4) the political position of the genre, particularly the ideas of Malcolm X. In Part II I shall try to assess the genre. Does it succeed as art, or as political philosophy, or anything else? 

(Minor edits by BV)

Addendum by BV (12/11/17)

Long-time reader E. C. sends us to rapper Joyner Lucas, I'm Not Racist. It warms my heart this holiday season to see how wonderfully race relations have improved since the '60s in this country.

Trump’s Pensacola Speech

That was a great speech last night. I enjoyed every word of it.  I share Judge Jeanine's enthusiasm.  

"But how can you of all people, someone who is always going on about how language matters and who rails regularly against its misuse, stomach Trump's exaggerations and falsehoods? He self-servingly claimed, for example, that he beat Hillary in a 'landslide' when we all know he lost the popular vote."

I will respond with an answer an erstwhile leftist friend gave when I complained to him about Obama's utterly brazen lying and bullshitting. His response was that all politicians lie. (Of course, a lie is not the same as a false statement, and while we know that Obama and Hillary are brazen and very skillful liars, it is much less clear that Trump comes up to their level of intentional misrepresentation of facts.)

The point, of course, is that we overlook the faults of those whose views we share.  If you were to prove to me that Trump is as shameless a liar as Obama or the Clintons, I would respond: "You may be right, but he is our liar."  In other words, he forwards the agenda we think salutary and impedes the agenda of hate-America leftists.  And that is what really matters.

I think Trump is basically right in his ideas and that, had he not beaten the destructive leftist Hillary, then the "fundamental transformation" Obama promised would be upon us in short order.

Bear in mind what I have said many times before: no lover of a thing desires that thing's fundamental transformation. Now a patriot is one who loves his country, ergo, etc.

Dennis Prager puts his finger on why the Never-Trumpers opposed and still oppose Trump:

They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That these comfortable yappers and scribblers who form una clasa discutidora do not see the existential threat to the Republic is largely due to their isolation in their echo chambers. They need to get out of the swamp and into the heartland. 

Juan Donoso Cortés on Never-Trumpers as Una Clasa Discutidora

Juan Donoso CortesI have on several occasions referred to Never-Trumpers as yap-and-scribble do-nothings who think of politics as a grand debate gentlemanly conducted and endlessly protracted and who think of themselves as doing something worthwhile whether or not their learned discussions in well-appointed venues achieve anything at all in slowing the leftist juggernaut.  It now occurs to me that Juan Donoso Cortés(1809-1853) had their number long ago. This is a theme worth exploring.

As we speak, Mr. Amazon is delivering the book on the left to my humble abode, but I have yet to receive it, and I confess to not yet having read the man himself. So for now  I merely pull a couple of quotations from Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, tr. George Schwab, University of Chicago Press, 1985: 

According to Donoso Cortés, it was characteristic of bourgeois liberalism not to decide in this battle but to begin a discussion. He straightforwardly defined the bourgeoisie as a “discussing class,” una clasa discutidora. It has thus been sentenced. This definition contains the class characteristic of wanting to evade the decision. A class that shifts all political activity onto the plane of conversation in the press and in parliament is no match for social conflict. (59)

Just as liberalism discusses and negotiates every political detail, so it also wants to dissolve metaphysical truth in a discussion. The essence of liberalism is negotiation, a cautious half measure, in the hope that the definitive dispute, the decisive bloody battle, can be transformed into a parliamentary debate and permit the decision to be suspended forever in an everlasting discussion. (63)

To understand the Trump phenomenon we will have to study Carl Schmitt. Trump is a man who knows how to make decisions and move from talk to action.  He is not one of the bow-tie boys who belongs to the club and is content to chatter.  He knows how to fight. He knows that civility and refined manners count for nothing in a confrontation with  leftist thugs from Chicago brought up on Alinsky.  You hit them, and you hit them so hard that they reel in shock.

I know what some will say. Schmitt was a Nazi. By invoking Schmitt am I not acquiescing in the view that Trump is Hitler-like?  But consider this: would Hitler have recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?  Would Hitler have the support of the NRA?

The Trump = Hitler identity theory is clear proof of the poverty of leftist 'thought.' 

The Erasure of Garrison Keillor

His work and legacy, not the man. The Stalinism of the Left at work eating its own. Of a piece with the leftist erasure of history via the destruction of monuments and statues. Leftists share this nasty tendency with Muslims with whom they work in cahoots, consciously or not. Muslims are well-known for their iconoclasm, hostility to the arts, and destruction of cultural artifacts.

The trouble with iconoclasm is that all parties can play the game. 

Mass-murdering communist regimes are responsible for some 94 million deaths in the 20th century. Why not then destroy all the statues and monuments that honor the likes of Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin, Fidel Castro and all others who either laid the foundations for or carried out mass murder?  

You understand, of course, that I am not advocating this.  For one thing, the erasure of history would make it rather more difficult to learn from it. For another thing, there would be no end to it.  Why not destroy the Colosseum in Rome? You know what went on there.

Or how about St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. ?  Should paintings and statues of him be destroyed?  He had a hand in the burning at the stake of the philosopher Giordano Bruno!

Details and documentation here.

Why Don’t Catholics Fight Back?

William Kilpatrick:

The chief reason is that Catholics are receiving little guidance about Islam from their leaders. And what little information they receive is misleading. The hierarchy is still sticking with the message that Islam is a religion of peace which has recently been given a bad name by a tiny handful of terrorists who misunderstand the beneficent nature of their faith.

Meanwhile, while Catholic leaders have been pedaling this rosy picture of Islam, 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith in 2016. Between 2005 and 2015, 900,000 Christians were martyred. In most cases the executioners were Muslims.

Let those numbers sink in. Donald J. Trump would make a better pope than  Bergoglio the Benighted. 

Religious Liberty and David Brooks

This is a slightly redacted re-post from before the Trump victory, from 29 October 2016, to be exact. The cause of religious liberty has been substantially advanced by President Trump. Yet another reason  for patriots and true conservatives to be grateful this Holiday season.

………………..

The Op-Ed pages of The New York Times are plenty poor to be sure, but Ross Douthat and David Brooks are sometimes worth reading.  But the following from Brooks (28 October 2016) is singularly boneheaded although the opening sentence is exactly right:

The very essence of conservatism is the belief that politics is a limited activity, and that the most important realms are pre­political: conscience, faith, culture, family and community. But recently conservatism has become more the talking arm of the Republican Party. Among social conservatives, for example, faith sometimes seems to come in second behind politics, Scripture behind voting guides. Today, most white evangelicals are willing to put aside the Christian virtues of humility, charity and grace for the sake of a Trump political victory.

Come on, man.  Don't be stupid.  The Left is out to suppress religious liberty.  This didn't start yesterday.  You yourself mention conscience, but you must be aware that bakers and florists have been forced by the state to violate their consciences by catering homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies.  Is that a legitimate use of state power?  And if the wielders of state power can get away with that outrage, where will they stop? Plenty of other examples can be adduced, e.g., the Obama administration's assault on the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The reason evangelicals and other Christians support Trump is that they know what that destructive and deeply mendacious stealth ideologue  Hillary will do when she gets power. It is not because they think the Gotham sybarite lives the Christian life, but despite his not living it.  They understand that ideas and policies trump character issues especially when Trump's opponent is even worse on the character plane.  What's worse: compromising national security, using high public office to enrich oneself, and then endlessly lying about it all, or forcing oneself on a handful of women?

The practice of the Christian virtues and the living of the Christian life require freedom of religion.  Our freedoms are under vicious assault by leftists  like Hillary. This is why Trump garners the support of Christians.  

The threat from the Left is very real indeed.  See here and read the chilling remarks of Martin Castro of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights.  Given Castro's comments the name of the commission counts as Orwellian. 

Is Anal Bleaching Racist?

It would have to be, right?

Logically prior question: what is anal bleaching?

Filed under: Decline of the West