Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • The Integrationist Fantasy

    Top o' the Stack.

    E pluribus unum? Out of many, one? It can work, and it did work for a time, though not perfectly. But thanks to ‘progressives,’ regression has set in. Whether a One can be made of Many depends on the nature of the Many.

    A viable One cannot be made out of just any Many.

    To think otherwise is to succumb to what I call the Integrationist Fantasy. This is the dangerous conceit that people can be brought together peacefully and productively despite deep differences in their languages, religions, cultures, traditions, and values.

    Read it all; it's short: your Twitterized (X'ed out?) brain will be able to process it.


    6 responses to “The Integrationist Fantasy”

  • Was January 6 an Insurrection?

    Obviously not.


  • How Could God be Ineffable?

    The mystically inclined say that God is ineffable.  The ineffable is the inexpressible, the unspeakable. Merriam-Webster:

     Ineffable comes from ineffābilis, which joins the prefix in-, meaning "not," with the adjective effābilis, meaning "capable of being expressed." Effābilis comes from effārī, "to speak out," which in turn comes from ex- and fārī, meaning “to speak.”

    But: "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7) Does it follow that there is nothing ineffable, inexpressible, unspeakable? Some will draw this conclusion; Hegel is one. Ludwig the Tractarian, however, does not draw this conclusion: 

    There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical. (Tractatus, 6.522)

    God is the prime example of das Unaussprechliche. But if we cannot say anything about God, then we cannot say any of the following: he exists; he does not exist; he is transcendent; he is immanent; he is all-knowing; he is not all-knowing; he has attributes; he has no attributes; he is ineffable; he is not ineffable; and so on.

    Is this a problem? Maybe not.  

    Consider any mundane thing, a rock, say.  Can you put it into words? Can you capture its existence and its haecceity (its non-qualitative thisness) in concepts?  You cannot. At most you can capture  conceptually only its quidditative determinations, all of which are multiply exemplifiable or repeatable. But the thing itself is unrepeatable and escapes conceptual capture.  The discursive intellect cannot grasp it. Es ist unbegreifbar.  It cannot be 'effed' linguistically or conceptually.  Individuum ineffabile est.

    If you can see that the individual qua individual is conceptually ineffable, why do you balk at talk of the divine ineffability? If the haecceity of a grain of sand or a speck of dust cannot be conceptualized, then a fortiori for the super-eminent haecceity and ipseity of the super-eminent Individual who is not a mere  individual among individuals but Individuality itself.   

    The Ineffable One cannot fall under any of our ordinary concepts. We can however, point to it by using a limit concept (Grenzbegriff).  A limit concept is not an ordinary concept. Note that we do have the concept of that which is beyond all concepts. (If we did not, this discourse would be nonsense when it plainly is not, pace Wittgenstein.) That smacks of self-contradiction, but the contradiction is avoided by distinguishing between ordinary and limit concepts. 

    So, while remaining within the ineluctable discursivity of our discursive intellects, I am able to point beyond the sphere of the discursive intellect into the Transdiscursive.  You can understand this by analogy to the transdiscursivity of a stick, a stone, a dog, a bone, a bird, a turd, or any part thereof.

    How do I gain epistemic access to a mundane particular such as a stick or a stone in its unrepeatable particularity?  By sensible intuition (sinnliche Anschauung in Kant's sense).  We do it all the time. And so, by a second analogy, we can understand how epistemic access to the Absolute and Ineffable One is to be had: by intellectual intuition or mystical gnosis. 


    6 responses to “How Could God be Ineffable?”

  • On Writing Philosophy

    One writes the hard-core stuff with no assurance that one will  be read, except by a few. And these few cannot be expected to read with much care and almost certainly not with the care the author expended in writing. And of the those who read with care, only a few of them will actually understand what the author is maintaining.

    And soon enough, for the vast majority, one's book will languish on a library shelf  to gather dust or else end up in a remainder bin.  

    So why do we write?  For the same reason the great philosophers wrote. To get at the truth, to articulate the inchoate, to know one's mind, to realize one's mind.  


  • Legutko on Libertarianism

    I have some bones to pick with Legutko, but this is good:

    [Libertarianism] crumbles because it attempts to square the circle. Two loyalties — one particular to one's own community, the other to an infinitely open system — cannot be reconciled.
     
     

  • Brazen Lies and Big Lies

    1) Brazen lies.  Here is an AI-generated definition: "A brazen lie is a bold and shameless falsehood, often told without any attempt to hide or conceal it." 

    The AI-generated definition is on the right track, but it is not quite right: it blurs the line between a falsehood (a false statement) and a lie. A lie is not the same as a false statement. For one can make a false statement without lying: one may sincerely believe that what one is asserting is true when in fact it is false. The intention to deceive is essential to a lie: there is no  lie without the intention to deceive. A lie, then, is an intentional misrepresentation of what one either knows to be the case or sincerely believes to be the case for the purpose of deceiving one's audience.

    So that is what a lie is. But not all lies are brazen lies. A brazen lie is a lie told boldly and shamelessly.   

    2) Big lies.  I would define a big lie as a brazen lie so outrageous that an ordinary person would think the liar had to be telling the truth because no one would have the chutzpah to say something so outrageous unless  it were true. Example: Alejandro Mayorkas's claim that the border is secure. 


  • Culpably Ignorant Dems

    Is a soupçon of Schadenfreude justifiable? He who lives by DEI can expect to die by it.  Michael Shellenberger at X:

    I’m not suggesting that Democrats consciously sought to destroy Los Angeles. The entertainment industry professionals in Malibu, Topanga Canyon, and Pacific Palisades, who voted overwhelmingly for California’s progressive Governor, Gavin Newsom, and LA’s radical Left mayor, Karen Bass, thought they were voting for social justice and sustainability. They didn’t imagine their vote would result in their homes burning down.

    And yet that’s what their votes resulted in.

    Too tepid for my taste. The Dems in question are not inherently stupid, but they deserve to be condemned for their culpable ignorance. They should have known better than to support the likes of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Karen "Go to the URL" Bass, Kristin Crowley, George Gascon, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the reprobates that populate their once-respectable party. They should have by now seen through the scam called 'social justice.'

    The trouble with these people is that you cannot reason with them no matter how calm, fact-based, and rigorous your arguments. These Hollyweirdos do not inhabit the plane of reason and common sense.  They need to experience at their bodies and in their lives the consequences of their willful self-enstupidation.  Only then will some of them see the light.

    Does the current LaLaLand conflagration have an upside? It does: it came at just the right time to galvanize the MAGA forces so that they can hit the ground running, take back the country, restore the republic, and defeat the depredatory Dems. May the Winds of Woke not prevail against them.

     


    4 responses to “Culpably Ignorant Dems”

  • Peter Yarrow (1938-2025)

    Guardian obituary. Malcolm Pollack's tribute. And here is a rare photo taken by an unknown German photographer at Gerde's Folk City, Greenwich Village, 1961.  (HT: Tony Flood)

    Dylan  Yarrow  van Ronk


  • Idle Talk and Idle Thought

    If you aim to avoid idle talk, then you ought also aim to avoid idle thought. A maxim to mind:

    Avoid the near occasion of useless conversation.

    This applies both to conversation with others and with oneself. The latter is avoided by internal situational awareness which is classically enjoined by:

    Guard the mind.

    Not easy. It is easy to avoid others, but not easy to avoid one's garrulous self.


  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: Radosh and ‘Spengler’ on Dylan

    In October of 2016, I wrote,

    Of course, it was all a put-on. Woody Guthrie was a middle-class lawyer's son. Pete Seeger was the privileged child of classical musicians who decamped to Greenwich Village. The authenticity of the folk movement stank of greasepaint. But a generation of middle-class kids who, like Holden Caulfield, thought their parents "phony" gravitated to the folk movement. In 1957, Seeger was drunk and playing for pittances at Communist Party gatherings; that's where I first met him, red nose and all. By the early 1960s he was a star again.

    To Dylan's credit, he knew it was a scam, and spent the first part of his career playing with our heads. He could do a credible imitation of the camp-meeting come-to-Jesus song ("When the Ship Comes In") and meld pseudo-folk imagery with social-protest sensibility ("A Hard Rain's  a' Gonna Fall"). But he knew it was all play with pop culture ("Lone Ranger and Tonto/Riding down the line/Fixin' everybody's troubles/Everybody's 'cept mine"). When he went electric at the Newport Festival to the hisses of the folk purists, he knew it was another kind of joke.

    Only someone who was not moved by the music of that period could write something so extreme.  No doubt there was and is an opportunistic side to Dylan.  He started out an unlikely rock-and roller in high school aping Little Richard, but sensed that the folk scene was where he could make his mark.  And so for a time he played the son of Ramblin' Jack Elliot and the grandson of Woody Guthrie.

    In his recent Nobel Prize lecture, Dylan mentions early influences. Let's dig up some of the tunes that inspired him.

    Buddy Holly, True Love Ways

    I think it was a day or two after that that his [Holly's] plane went down. And somebody – somebody I’d never seen before – handed me a Leadbelly record with the song “Cottonfields” on it. And that record changed my life right then and there. Transported me into a world I’d never known. It was like an explosion went off. Like I’d been walking in darkness and all of the sudden the darkness was illuminated. It was like somebody laid hands on me. I must have played that record a hundred times.

    Leadbelly, Cotton Fields

    It was on a label I’d never heard of with a booklet inside with advertisements for other artists on the label: Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee, the New Lost City Ramblers, Jean Ritchie, string bands. I’d never heard of any of them. But I reckoned if they were on this label with Leadbelly, they had to be good, so I needed to hear them. I wanted to know all about it and play that kind of music. I still had a feeling for the music I’d grown up with, but for right now, I forgot about it. Didn’t even think about it. For the time being, it was long gone.

    Sonnie Terry and Brownie McGhee, Key to the Highway.  Just to vex London Ed who hates Eric 'Crapton' as he calls him, here is his Derek and the Dominoes version with Duane Allman. Sound good to me, Ed!

    New Lost City Ramblers, Tom Dooley

    Jean Ritchie and Doc Watson, What Will I Do with the Baby-O?

    By listening to all the early folk artists and singing the songs yourself, you pick up the vernacular. You internalize it. You sing it in the ragtime blues, work songs, Georgia sea shanties, Appalachian ballads and cowboy songs. You hear all the finer points, and you learn the details.

    You know what it’s all about. Takin’ the pistol out and puttin’ it back in your pocket. Whippin’ your way through traffic, talkin’ in the dark. You know that Stagger Lee was a bad man and that Frankie was a good girl. You know that Washington is a bourgeois town and you’ve heard the deep-pitched voice of John the Revelator and you saw the Titanic sink in a boggy creek. And you’re pals with the wild Irish rover and the wild colonial boy. You heard the muffled drums and the fifes that played lowly. You’ve seen the lusty Lord Donald stick a knife in his wife, and a lot of your comrades have been wrapped in white linen.

    I had all the vernacular down. I knew the rhetoric. None of it went over my head – the devices, the techniques, the secrets, the mysteries – and I knew all the deserted roads that it traveled on, too. I could make it all connect and move with the current of the day. When I started writing my own songs, the folk lingo was the only vocabulary that I knew, and I used it.

    Mississippi John Hurt, The Ballad of Stagger Lee

    Mississippi John Hurt, You Got to Walk that Lonesome Valley

    Mississippi John Hurt, You Are My Sunshine

    Blind Willie Johnson, John the Revelator

    George F. Will, The Prize that Bob Dylan Really Deserves


    2 responses to “Saturday Night at the Oldies: Radosh and ‘Spengler’ on Dylan”

  • Robert Paul Wolff (1933-2025)

    When John Silber died in September of 2012, Robert Wolff expressed his contempt for the conservative Boston University president in an ironically entitled notice, De Mortuis. Wolff's title alludes to the Latin saying de mortuis nil nisi bonum.  Literally translated: "About the dead, nothing except the good," which is to say, "Speak no evil of the dead." I have criticized Wolff with trenchancy and sarcasm on more than one occasion, and he richly deserved it;  on this occasion, however, I will not follow his example but heed the Latin injunction and refer you to On Books and Gratitude wherein I say something nice about the man. I will add that his writings on anarchism and on Kant are well worth the time and effort.  Here are my Substack articles on Wolff on anarchism:

    Notes on Anarchism I

    Notes on Anarchism II

    Notes on Anarchism III

    Robert Paul Wolff on Anarchism and Marxism

    Here is an obituary. (HT: Dave Lull)

    R P Wolff


    3 responses to “Robert Paul Wolff (1933-2025)”

  • Bret Stephens on the Biden Presidency: Four Illusions, Four Deceptions

    Tepid, not trenchant.  But it at least shows that some of the members of the NYT commentariat are beginning to extract their heads from a locus from which the visibility is poor if not nonexistent.


  • DocuSign Bitcoin Scam Alert

    I received one of these phishing e-mails this morning. Caveat lector!

    Related: Why are People So Easy to Swindle?


    One response to “DocuSign Bitcoin Scam Alert”

  • Grades of Prayer

    Substack latest

    A partial list of the rungs on an ascending ladder.


  • “Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread”

    Physical bread or meta-physical bread?  Top o' the Stack.


    One response to ““Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread””




Philosophy Weblogs



Other Websites