Month: April 2023

How Many Friends Have You Lost Over Politics?

I have lost about a half dozen. How about you? I am interested in your stories, but even more in your analysis.

Austin Ruse bemoans friendships lost. His piece ends:

Maybe my friend is right. Maybe we can’t be friends right now, maybe never. For me, though, that would be unspeakably sad. Message to my old pal: my door is always open. 

Unspeakably sad? I see things differently. People who lost their minds over Trump, people too stupid to see past the man's obnoxious style and credit his ideas and numerous positive accomplishments; people who refused to see Biden for what he is, a fraud, a phony, a brazen liar, an empty suit rooted in no principle, morally corrupt, physically feeble, and non compos mentis; people who donned useless masks out of ovine fear, people who went along, to get along, with wokery and trans-delusionality and the celebration of thugs and criminals and every manner of loser — such people were never worthy of my friendship in the first place. They were false friends from the start and I am glad circumstances made them show their true colors.  Good riddance!

Some say Trump is the Great Divider. Nonsense. He is the Great Clarifier.

How the Dems Will Win in 2024

Victor Davis Hanson explains.

Here's an alternative scenario from Paul Kengor.

"If RFK [Jr.] goes third party, it would be doomsday for Democrats. It could bring Donald Trump back to the White House. And if that happens, Democrats [will] have only themselves to blame for their idiotic, authoritarian policies on everything from vaccine mandates to drag queen story hours to transgender athletes bullying girls."

Comments now enabled.

Nominalism Presupposes What it Denies

What makes a pair of shoes a pair and not just two physical artifacts? Nominalist answer: nothing in reality. Our resident nominalist tells us that it is our use of 'a pair' that imports a unity, conventional and linguistic in nature, a unity that does not exist in reality apart from our conventional importation. We are being told that out there in the world there are no ones-in-many, let alone any ones-over-many. If that is  right, then there are no sets. For a set is a one-over-many in this sense: it is one item distinct from its many members. (Let's not worry about the null set, which has no members and unit-sets or singletons which have exactly one member each. Here lies yet another rich source of aporiai, but one problem at a time.) 

If there are no sets, then there are neither finite sets nor infinite sets. There are just pluralities, and all grouping, collecting, subsuming under common rubrics, unifying, etc. is done in language by language-users. What I will try to show is that if you think carefully about all of this you will have to make distinctions that are inconsistent with nominalism. 

My aim is purely negative: to show that the nominalism of the resident nominalist is untenable. If you have read a good amount of what I have written you will recall that I am a solubility skeptic, which in this instance means that I am not endorsing any realist solution of the problem. I am not pushing an opposing theory. 

I will start with some data that I find 'Moorean,' i.e., rationally indisputable and pre-theoretical.  (Unfortunately, one man's datum is another man's theory.) The phrase 'a pair' has a sense that remains the same over time and space, a sense that is the same for all competent speakers of English whether here or abroad. The same holds for ein Paar in German, and similarly for all languages. The sense or meaning of an expression, whether word, phrase, sentence, etc. must be distinguished from the expression.  An expression is something physical and thus sensible. The sensible is that which is able to be sensed via one of our senses.  I hear the sound that conveys to me the meaning of 'cat,' say, or I see the marks on paper. Hearing and seeing are outer senses that somehow inform us or, more cautiously, purport to inform us of the existence and properties of physical or material things that exist whether or not we perceive them. But I don't hear or see the meaning conveyed to me by your utterance of  a sentence such 'The cats are asleep.' The sentence, being a physical particular, is sensible; the meaning is intelligible. That's just Latin for understandable. I hear the words you speak, and if all goes well, I understand their meaning or sense, thereby understanding the proposition you intend to convey to me, namely, that the cats are asleep. Note that while one can trip over sleeping cats, one cannot trip over that the cats are asleep.

There are two distinctions implicit in the above that need to be set forth clearly.  I argue that neither is compatible with nominalism

A. The distinction between the sense/meaning of a linguistic expression and the expression. Why must we make this distinction? (a) Because the same sense can be expressed at different times by the same person using the same expression. (b) Because the same sense can be expressed at the same and at different times by different people using the same expression. (c) Because the same sense can be expressed in different languages using different expressions by the same and different people at the same and at different times. For example the following sentences express, or rather can be used to express, the same sense (meaning, proposition):

The cat is black.
Il gatto è nero. 
Die Katze ist schwarz.
Kedi siyah.
Kočka je černá.

So the sense of a word or phrase or sentence is a one-in-many in that each tokening of the word or phrase expresses numerically the same sense.  A tokening, by definition, is the production of a token, in this case, a linguistic token.  One way a speaker can produce such a token is by uttering the word or phrase in question. Another way is by writing the word or phrase down on a piece of paper. (There are numerous other ways as well.)  This production of tokens therefore presupposes a further distinction:

B. The distinction between linguistic types and linguistic tokens. In the following array, how many words are there?

cat
cat
cat

Three or one? Is the same word depicted three times? Or are there three words? Either answer is as good as the other but they contradict each other. So we need to make a distinction: there are three tokens of the same type. We are forced by elementary exegesis of the data to make the type-token distinction.  If you don't make it, then you will not be able to answer my simple question: three words or one?

You see (using the optical transducers in your head, and not by any visio intellectualis) the three tokens. And note that the tokens you now see are not the tokens I saw when I wrote this entry. Those were different tokens of the same type, tokens which, at the time of your reading are wholly past. Linguistic tokens are in time, and in space, which is not obviously the case for linguistic types. I said: not obviously the case, not: obviously not the case.   You see the three tokens, but do you see the type of which they are the tokens? If you do, then you have powers I lack. And yet the tokens are tokens of a type. No type, no tokens. So types exist. How will our nominalist accommodate them? He cannot reduce types to sets of tokens since he eschews sets. No sets, no sets of linguistic tokens. Linguistic types are multiply instantiable. That makes them universals. But no nominalist accepts universals.  Nominalists hold that everything is a particular.  I grant that the rejection of sets and the rejection of universals are different rejections. But if one rejects sets because they are abstract objects, one ought also to reject universals for the same reason.

Now glance back at the first array. What we have there are five different sentence tokens from five different languages.  Each is both token – and type-distinct from the other four. 

To conclude, I present our nominalist with two challenges. The first is to give a nominalist account of linguistic types without either reducing them to sets or treating them as ones-in-many or ones-over-many. The second challenge is to explain the distinction between the sense or meaning of an expression, which is not physical/material and the expression which is.

Suppose he responds to the second challenge by embracing conceptualism according to which  meanings are mental.  Conceptualism is concept-nominalism, as D. M. Armstrong has maintained. My counterargument would be that the meaning/sense expressed by a tokening of 'The cats are asleep'  is objectively either true or false, and thus either true or false for all of us, not just for the speaker. Sentential meanings are not private mental contents.  Fregean Gedanken, for example, are not dependent for their existence or truth-value on languages or language-users.  

 

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Starting, Stopping, Moving, and Grooving

These tunes in memory of my cat Zeno and the 'cat' he was named after, Zeno of Elea.

Sammy Davis, Jr., I Can't Get Started Bunny Berigan, 1937.

Don Gibson, I Can't Stop Loving You

Little Eva, Locomotion Eva was Carole King's housekeeper. Carole wrote her a song . . .

Sir Douglas Quintet, She's about a Mover (She's a body mover.)

Electric Flag, Groovin' is Easy

A contender for the greatest, tightest band of the '60s, featuring Mike Bloomfield on guitar, my second guitar hero. I saw him play at the Monterey Pop Festival in '67. The Jewish kid from an affluent Chicago suburb exemplifies cultural appropriation at its finest. His riffs derive from B. B. King but he outplays the King of the Blues.  Is that a racist thing to say? It can't be racist if it's true.

From Dylan's Down in the Groove album, Ugliest Girl in the World.  From racism to sexism. But it can't be sexist if it's true. For any X, it can't be X-ist if it is true.  Is it speciesist to say that man is the crown of creation, or to prefer human beings to robots? Humanity first!

Trump the Only Way Forward

Conservatives Lost the Culture War and the Trump Agenda is the Only Path Forward

Refreshingly realistic but also deeply troubling. I fear the author is right. Conservatives lost the culture war and so now: 

Conservatives do not have a viable path to political power any other way. The issues of national survival are of primary importance. There is no point in fighting a culture war if we don’t have a country in which this war can take place. [. . .]

Trying to rehash these old battles in the present political moment, when institutional Christianity no longer has any meaningful political or cultural clout, is a waste of time—at least at the national level.

COVID-19 made the weakness of American Christianity painfully clear. Protestant and Catholic churches alike overwhelmingly declared themselves nonessential during the spring of 2020. That was, sadly, merely an acknowledgement of a longstanding reality.

Virtually no one today cares what the pope or any megachurch pastor, for that matter, has to say about political and cultural life. Their endorsements do not move the needle and their influence has had little to no bearing, even on their own flocks, when it comes to preserving the older standards of Christian morality and decency.  

[. . .]

We live in a country where the president says it is antisemitic to ban trans surgery for minors. And yet you will strain yourself trying to hear any priest or pastor say a word in response. Millions of Americans are hurting, desperately confused about their very identity and sexual impulses, and the leaders of the churches have almost nothing to say. Nonessential workers indeed.

[. . .]

One wonders what purpose, at this point, the differentiation between denominations even serves. Pope Francis, just like John MacArthur, agrees with the leftist view of racism. And Tim Keller, just like Pope Francis, lauds mass immigration. On the most prominent liberal issues of our day there is total agreement among the leaders of the West’s supposedly different Christian denominations. 

America has a moral majority, all right. It’s just liberal. The Left controls every institutional power center in America. Wall Street, the media, the universities, Hollywood, the military—you name it—everywhere the liberal consensus reigns supreme. There is not a single Fortune 500 company in America, not one, that would denounce transgender surgery for minors. 

Those institutions shape the public consciousness in a way social conservatives simply cannot. Manufactured consent is real and all around us. A large portion of Americans simply accept whatever their televisions and cellphones tell them to believe no matter how perverted, wrong, or harmful. Even many of those who do not agree with it, at least bow to the moral consensus. Think of all those many millions who got vaccinated, not because they wanted to, but because their “job required it” or because they couldn’t “travel without it.”

The idea that large numbers of Americans are going to “wake up” and “push back” is simply a cope. That’s not how popular opinion works. The idea that Americans are going to see transgenderism as a bridge too far is, I think, much overhyped. I remember the gay marriage “debates,” such as they were. I remember Prop 8 passing in 2008 in California. I also remember how none of these setbacks for the Left ultimately had any bearing in the end. By 2015, gay marriage was the law of the land. Today it is untouchable liberal orthodoxy supported by a majority of Americans, including large numbers of “conservatives.”

Deploying more 10,000-word essays on teleology and the new natural law isn’t going to solve the social issue problem either. Millions of Americans didn’t start shoving dildos in orifices, guzzling sex change hormones, and consuming billions of hours of pornography a year because they read an article or heard an argument. These sexual and social perversions spring from a much deeper source, one that isn’t going to be solved by policy wrangling in D.C. think tanks. 

The spiritual crisis that afflicts the West runs far deeper than most social conservatives want to admit. They don’t understand how bad things really are, which is why they stand around, mouths agape, as they try to figure out what a “furry” is or why U.S. military officers dress up in leather “pup play” fetish gear while they sodomize each other in uniform and then post photos to social media.

In light of our ongoing moral and spiritual crisis, I fully expect that the Bud Light/Dylan Mulvaney controversy is merely a blip that will soon pass. In the 1990s Ikea ran the world’s first commercial featuring a gay couple. In 2022, Ikea was valued at $17 billion. Go woke, go broke? 

Sure. 

The Matt Walsh’s of the world won’t want to hear this, but trying to fight the Left on gender with desiccated Socratic arguments (“What is a woman?”) is a losing battle. Owning liberals with facts and logic is mostly a waste of time.Political power doesn’t flow from scoring debate points in the “free marketplace of ideas.” It comes from the willingness to impose one’s beliefs on others and possessing the resources to do so. 

All morality requires enforcement. 

The Left implicitly understands that point. They are more than happy to crush their opponents. Just ask Donald Trump, John Eastman, Douglas Mackey, or any of the January 6 defendants. Strip away civilization and politics boils down to the distinction between friend and enemies. [You need a reference to Carl Schmitt here, son.] That’s why the White House hosted a trans day of visibility just two days after a transgender terrorist murdered six Christians in Tennessee. 

At some point, every political regime must put its foot down. Some people think cannibalism is wrong, others think that it is right. If the former are to prevail politically they must be willing to use force against the latter. In the end, this is what morality requires. This is what morality is. 

BV: The sound point here is that morality is just a lot of impotent prescriptions and proscriptions without an enforcement mechanism. But that is not to say that might makes right.  If the enforcer is to enforce good  and not evil, then the enforcer must either be God or, here below, godly men and governments.

Conservatives and Christians today simply lack the force of will to impose their social morality on the Left. That is why they lose cultural battles and the Left wins. Conservatives aren’t even willing to mock their enemies. If you want to make “respectable” social conservatives and Christians uncomfortable, call a prostitute a “whore” in their presence. Mock OnlyFans as a den of “sluts.” Express deep revulsion at sodomy. Watch them writhe in psychic pain. 

Such firm moral condemnation, I am frequently told, is “judge-y” and “un-Christian.” “We” need to “watch our tone” as “we” seek to “draw others to the faith.” As their flock comes under attack from wolves, the shepherds condemn those who would fight back. There are many such cases. 

The deep-rooted weakness of the American Christian Right is a serious problem. I wish it wasn’t this way. I wish my fellow Christians had more spirit. I wish our leaders would lead. That isn’t the reality we have, though, as much as I may wish otherwise.

Right now, conservatives in deep red areas can still fight cultural battles at the local and state levels. Even some purple states, at the local level, still provide a way to maneuver against the Left’s cultural hegemony. Everywhere else, and at the national level especially, conservatives must sideline the cultural battles in favor of the issues of national survival.  

Trump showed that even in our degraded moral culture, a huge percentage of Americans still want the nation to survive. They don’t hate themselves despite all the propaganda to which they’ve been subjected. The old pre-World War II conservative consensus in favor of protectionism, non-intervention, and immigration restrictions is still enormously popular. 

If we win on those fronts and secure a future for our country then, and only then, will we have a chance to fight once again for the family, for our faith, and for a return of moral decency. 

That day, however, is still a long way off. We have work to do. 

 

Unusual Experiences and the Problems of Overbelief and Underbelief

Substack latest.

One day, well over 40 years ago, I was deeply tormented by a swarm of negative thoughts and feelings that had arisen because of a dispute with a certain person.  Pacing around my apartment, I suddenly, without any forethought, raised my hands toward the ceiling and said, "Release me!"  It was a wholly spontaneous cri de coeur, a prayer if you will, but not intended as such.  I emphasize that it was wholly unpremeditated.    As soon as I had said the words and made the gesture, a wonderful peace descended upon my mind, and the flood of negativity vanished. I became as calm as a Stoic sage.

The Accelerationist Option

I wrote recently that the only way out is through, but Malcolm Pollack's most recent offering is much better; it is indeed brilliant.  It divides into three parts. There is first a litany of what ails us. The second part explains why the ills listed are upon us. The general answer is that

. . . an aggressive, secular pseudo-religion, which denies all transcendent order and natural categories, has seized control of the minds of scores of millions of Americans, and of the levers of political power and information dissemination. This ersatz religion holds as its highest principle the flattening of every natural distinction, and all social hierarchies, except of course the hierarchy that places itself in the position of commanding power over every institution, and over all of civil society.

This general answer is then fleshed out with a list of the specific truths that the secular pseudo-religion brands as heresy.

The third part of the essay raises the question of what we can do about the miasmic mess we are in. Pollack rejects as hopeless three ways out that quite naturally suggest themselves: voting, a return to federalism, and armed revolt.

And then comes the startling suggestion: 

Perhaps, then, it is best in the long run not to slow this process by incremental and ineffective political resistance. It may be that such an approach, by making the decay more gradual, will also make it somehow more bearable, day by day, and might turn it from an acute and intolerable affliction to a slow and chronic decline — a creeping Brazilification, a great national frog-boiling. Perhaps we would be wiser simply to let the cleansing fire of fever run its course, and burn itself out. It will be painful, and surely debilitating for a while, but then it will be over. And then, at last, we can awaken, blink our eyes, and get back on our feet.

Another term for the Big Guy might be all it takes. Four more years!!

In sum, the only way out is through, and the best way through is pedal-to-the-metal, balls-to-the-wall, lets-go-Brandon! Let Biden finish the job, as he intends to do, and thereby finish us off. After an ignominious death, resurrection, a new Phoenix from the old ashes. 

Might I suggest an historical parallel? Germany gone mad had to be destroyed before it could be rebuilt into sanity. It is perhaps a good thing that Hitler, drunk on his initial success, and consumed with hubris, overextended himself, thereby bringing to an end National Socialist totalitarianism. And so it may also be a good thing to allow the totalitarian-globalist-'woke'- race-delusional-culturally Marxist  scum now in control of our once-great Republic to bring her to her knees where she will repent, suffer, and die to be reborn.

Why Not be a Nominalist about Sets?

The resident nominalist comments:

Nominalists say that the conception of an actual infinity of natural numbers depends on there being a set of all such numbers. But Ockhamists do not believe in sets. They say that the term ‘a pair of shoes’ is a collective noun which deceives by the singular expression ‘a pair’. Deceives, because it means no more than ‘two shoes’, and if there is only a pair of shoes, then there are only two things. But if a ‘pair’ of two things is a single thing, there are three things, the two things and the pair. Ergo etc.

I agree that there cannot be an actual infinity of natural numbers unless there is a (mathematical as opposed to commonsense) set of all such numbers. But of course this holds for all numbers, rational, irrational, transcendental, etc. Indeed, it holds for any category of item that is actually infinite. If there is an actual infinity of propositions, for example, then there must be a set of all propositions. I would point out however that there is nothing nominalistic about our friend's opening remark.

Nominalism kicks in with the claim that there are no sets.  What there are are plural referring devices such as 'a pair of shoes' which fools us into thinking that in reality, i.e., extralinguistically, there are three things, a left shoe, a right shoe, and the pair, when there are only two things, the two shoes.  The same goes for the following seemingly singular but really plural phrases: a gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a parliament of owls, a coven of witches, etc.   

This all makes good sense up to a point. When I put on my shoes, I put on one, then the other. It would be a lame joke were you to say to me, "You put on the left shoe and then the right one; when are you going to put on the pair?" To eat a bunch of grapes is to eat each grape in the bunch; after that task is accomplished there is nothing left to do.  The bunch is not something 'over and above' the individual grapes that I still need to eat.

Consider now the Hatfields and the McCoys. These are two famous feuding Appalachian families, and therefore two pluralities. They cannot be (mathematical) sets on the nominalist view.  But there is also the two-membered plurality of these pluralities to which we refer with the phrase 'the Hatfields and the McCoys' in a sentence like 'The Hatfields and the McCoys are families  feuding with each other.'

If, however, a plurality of pluralities has exactly two members, as in the case of the Hatfields and the McCoys — taking those two collections collectively — then the latter cannot themselves be mere pluralities, but must be single items, albeit single items that have members. They must be both one and many. That is to say: In the sentence, 'The Hatfields and the McCoys are two famous feuding Appalachian families,' 'the Hatfields' and 'the McCoys' must each be taken to be referring to a single item, a family, and not to a plurality of persons. For if each is taken to refer to a plurality of items, then the plurality of pluralities could not have exactly two members but would many more than two members, as many members as there are Hatfields and MCoys all together. Compare the following two sentences:

1. The Hatfields and the McCoys number 100 in toto.

2. The Hatfields and the McCoys are two famous feuding Appalachian families.

In (1),'the Hatfields and the McCoys' can be interpreted as referring to a plurality of persons as opposed to a mathematical set of persons. But in (2), 'the Hatfields and the McCoys' cannot be taken to be referring to a plurality of persons; it must be taken to be referring to a plurality of two single items.

Or consider the following said to someone who mistakenly thinks that the Hatfields and the McCoys are one and the same family under two names:

3. The Hatfields and the McCoys are two, not one.

Clearly, in (3) 'the Hatfields and the McCoys' refers to a two-membered plurality of single items, each of which has many members, and not to a plurality of pluralities. And so we must introduce mathematical sets into our ontology.

My conclusion, contra the resident nominalist, is that we cannot scrape by on  pluralities alone. (Man does not live by manifold alone! He needs unity!) We need mathematical sets or something like them: entities that are both one and many.  A set, after all, is a one-in-many. It is not a mere many, and it is not a one 'over and above' a many.  The nominalist error is to recoil from the latter absurdity and end up embracing the former.  The truth is in the middle.

What I have given is  an argument from ordinary language to mathematical sets. But there are also mathematical arguments for sets. Here is a very simple one. The decimal expansion of the fraction 1/3 is nonterminating: .33333333 . . . . But if I trisect a line, i.e., divide it into three equal lengths, I divide it into three quite definite actual lengths.  This can be the case only if the the decimal expansion is a completed totality, an actual infinity, not a merely potential one.  An even better example is that of the irrational number, the square root of 2 — it is irrational because it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two numbers, the numerator and the denominator of a fraction as in the case of of the rational 1/3.  If the hypotenuse of a right triangle is   units of length, that is a quite definite and determinate length.  How could it be if the decimal expansion however protracted did not point to a completed totality, an actual infinity?

 

Isosceles_right_triangle_with_legs_length_1.svg

REFERENCES

Max Black, "The Elusiveness of Sets," Review of Metaphysics, vol. XXIV, no. 4 (June 1971), 614-636.

Stephen Pollard, Philosophical Introduction to Set Theory, University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. 

One Dem who is not a Demented Puppet, a Brazen Liar, A Cackling Clown, etc.

The RFK [Jr.] Potential for Political Disruption

His main target was the corrupt relationship between large corporations and captured administrative bureaucracies. He has spent his career battling such corruption in the realm of environmental regulation and wants to use his knowledge and experience to expand that battle to the whole of the administrative state. In what might have been the biggest applause line of the night, he said as president he would never be muscled or manipulated by any bureaucrat or lobbyist.

[. . .]

To be sure, he has been on record in being among the climate-change alarmists in even recent history. Have his views on this topic shifted in light of the fake COVID science of the last three years and the lockdown experience? Perhaps so. Many people on the left have begun to rethink this topic and perhaps RFK is among them. He certainly seems to have zero interest in anything like a “great reset” and he is not a member of the World Economic Forum.

[. . .]

His next area was the most satisfying to me personally. He broke the public silence on the critical issue of COVID lockdowns. He chronicled the astonishing expense for which we gained nothing, and blasted companies like Amazon that censored contrary views while driving the competition out of business. He spoke with fire about the shutting down of small business and the violation of people’s property rights and religious liberties and illustrated a profound command of the facts, being how the lockdowns created an even worst public-health crisis.

[. . . ]

Finally, he called for a national conversation about this proxy war that is developing with Russia. The first excuse for U.S. involvement was purely humanitarian but it is mutating into yet another disaster along lines of the Iraq war. He demanded an immediate end to U.S. funding and a push for a diplomatic solution before it is too late. He further called for closing military bases around the world and bringing the troops home, plus a revival of U.S. economic strength. In the course of this discussion, he explained with great competence the threat to the U.S. dollar from the recent moves by BRICS to abandon trade in the dollar.

UPDATE (4/24) RFK, Jr. on why Tucker got the boot.