Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • Policies Trump Personalities

    I'm with Kevin Sorbo. You say character matters? I agree! Trump's beats Kamala's. 

    "That moment when someone says, "I can't believe you would vote for Trump.”

    "I simply reply, “I'm not voting for Trump.”

    "I'm voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

    "I'm voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family.

    "I'm voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    "I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement and reducing inflation.

    "I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts.

    "I'm voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live.

    "I'm voting for the Police to be respected once again and to ensure Law & Order. I am tired of all the criminals having a revolving door and being put back in the street.

    "I’m voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    "I’m voting for keeping our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over the world – to China, Mexico and other foreign countries. I want USA made.

    "I’m voting for secure borders and have legal immigration. I can’t believe we have actually have flown 380,000 illegal immigrants into our country. I am voting for doing away with all of the freebies given to all of the illegals and not looking after the needs of the American citizens.

    "I'm voting for the Military & the Veterans who fought for this Country to give the American people their freedoms.

    "I'm voting for the unborn babies that have a right to live.

    "I’m voting for peace progress in the Middle East.

    "I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking.

    "I'm voting for Freedom of Religion.

    "I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I am voting for the return of teaching math, history, and science instead of indoctrination of our children and pronouns.

    "I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country.

    "I'm voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms and their future."


    One response to “Policies Trump Personalities”

  • No Alternative to (Classical) Liberalism

    Substack latest.


    6 responses to “No Alternative to (Classical) Liberalism”

  • Young Man’s Blues

    I've been up since 1:00 a.m. It is now 4:20 or so. This old man needs a second cup of java, and a musical re-boot.  This goes out to all you young guys getting hammered these days.  Awake yet? Now settle down and dig the Mose Allison version.


  • Competing Interpretations of Descartes

    Magnificent in aspiration, philosophy is miserable in execution. Thus one of my aphorisms. Not only do competent practitioners disagree about every issue, we also disagree about the interpretation of the great philosophers.

    The infirmity of finite reason in a fallen world kicks us humans to the ground where we learn doxastic humility. Or at least some of us do. Etymology:

    human (adj.)

    mid-15c., humainhumaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (from root *dhghem- "earth"), but there is no settled explanation of the sound changes involved. Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian žmuo (accusative žmuni) "man, male person."

    humility (n.)

    early 14c., "quality of being humble," from Old French umelite "humility, modesty, sweetness" (Modern French humilité), from Latin humilitatem (nominative humilitas) "lowness, small stature; insignificance; baseness, littleness of mind," in Church Latin "meekness," from humilis "lowly, humble," literally "on the ground," from humus "earth," from PIE root *dhghem- "earth." In the Mercian hymns, Latin humilitatem is glossed by Old English eaðmodnisse.

     

    The following verbatim from a SEP entry by Gert-Jan Lokhorst:

    One would like to know a little more about the nature of the soul and its relationship with the body, but Descartes never proposed a final theory about these issues. From passages such as the ones we have just quoted one might infer that he was an interactionist who thought that there are causal interactions between events in the body and events in the soul, but this is by no means the only interpretation that has been put forward. In the secondary literature, one finds at least the following interpretations.

    1. Descartes was a Scholastic-Aristotelian hylomorphist, who thought that the soul is not a substance but the first actuality or substantial form of the living body (Hoffman 1986, Skirry 2003).
    2. He was a Platonist who became more and more extreme: “The first stage in Descartes’ writing presents a moderate Platonism; the second, a scholastic Platonism; the third, an extreme Platonism, which, following Maritain, we may also call angelism: ‘Cartesian dualism breaks man up into two complete substances, joined to another no one knows how: one the one hand, the body which is only geometric extension; on the other, the soul which is only thought—an angel inhabiting a machine and directing it by means of the pineal gland’ (Maritain 1944, p. 179). Not that there is anything very ‘moderate’ about his original position—it is only the surprising final position that can justify assigning it that title” (Voss 1994, p. 274).
    3. He articulated—or came close to articulating—a trialistic distinction between three primitive categories or notions: extension (body), thought (mind) and the union of body and mind (Cottingham 1985; Cottingham 1986, ch. 5).
    4. He was a dualistic interactionist, who thought that the rational soul and the body have a causal influence on each other. This is the interpretation one finds in most undergraduate textbooks (e.g., Copleston 1963, ch. 4).
    5. He was a dualist who denied that causal interactions between the body and the mind are possible and therefore defended “a parallelism in which changes of definite kinds occurrent in the nerves and brains synchronize with certain mental states correlated with them” (Keeling 1963, p. 285).
    6. He was, at least to a certain extent, a non-parallelist because he believed that pure actions of the soul, such as doubting, understanding, affirming, denying and willing, can occur without any corresponding or correlated physiological events taking place (Wilson 1978, p. 80; Cottingham 1986, p. 124). “The brain cannot in any way be employed in pure understanding, but only in imagining or perceiving by the senses” (AT VII:358, CSM II:248).
    7. He was a dualistic occasionalist, just like his early followers Cordemoy (1666) and La Forge (1666), and thought that mental and physical events are nothing but occasions for God to act and bring about an event in the other domain (Hamilton in Reid 1895, vol. 2, p. 961 n).
    8. He was an epiphenomenalist as far as the passions are concerned: he viewed them as causally ineffectual by-products of brain activity (Lyons 1980, pp. 4–5).
    9. He was a supervenientist in the sense that he thought that the will is supervenient to (determined by) the body (Clarke 2003, p. 157).
    10. The neurophysiology of the Treatise of man “seems fully consistent […] with a materialistic dual-aspect identity theory of mind and body” (Smith 1998, p. 70).
    11. He was a skeptical idealist (Kant 1787, p. 274).
    12. He was a covert materialist who hid his true opinion out of fear of the theologians (La Mettrie 1748).

    There seem to be only two well-known theories from the history of the philosophy of mind that have not been attributed to him, namely behaviorism and functionalism. But even here one could make a case. According to Hoffman (1986) and Skirry (2003), Descartes accepted Aristotle’s theory that the soul is the form of the body. According to Kneale (1963, p. 839), the latter theory was “a sort of behaviourism”. According to Putnam (1975), Nussbaum (1978) and Wilkes (1978), it was similar to contemporary functionalism. By transitivity, one might conclude that Descartes was either a sort of behavorist or a functionalist.


    2 responses to “Competing Interpretations of Descartes”

  • The 2020 Theft Saved the Country

    The argument of this article goes through even if the 2020 election was not stolen from Trump. Biden's reversal of Trump's good works has exposed the thoroughly depredatory nature of our political enemies and has galvanized Trump and his supporters. The Orange Man has learned a lot in the interim.  First-rate ass-kickers have joined his team, Elon Musk and J. D. Vance to mention but two. His four-year sabbatical has done him good.  Compare Vance to Pence to get a sense of what I mean.

    I find it hard to avoid schadenfreude when I think of the pain of leftists, whether full-on Dementocrats or RINO-cratic fellow travelers.   So, to rub it in: if you depredatory chucklephucks hadn't opposed Trump with your vicious lies and dirty tricks, you would be done with him in four months. 

    Some say that Trump is 'divisive.' Here is my 26 August 2017 rebuttal:

    To say of Trump or anyone that he is divisive is to say that he promotes  division. But there is no need to promote it these days since we already have plenty of it. We are a deeply and perhaps irreparably divided nation.  So it is not right to say that Trump is divisive: he is standing on one side of an already existing divide.

    Trump did not create the divide between those who stand for the rule of law and oppose sanctuary cities, porous borders, illegal immigration and irresponsibly lax legal immigration policies.  What he did is take up these issues fearlessly, something his milque-toast colleagues could not bring themselves to do.  

    And he has met with some success: illegal immigration is down some 50%. 

    So-called 'liberals' and their RINO pals call him a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe. That they engage in this slander shows that the nation is bitterly divided over fundamental questions. It also shows what kind of people our political enemies are. 

    Too often journalistic word-slingers shoot first and ask questions never. Wouldn't it be nice if they thought before their lemming-like and knee-jerk deployment of such adjectives as 'divisive'?

    Language matters.

    We are in deep trouble as a country, and as a consequence, the world is as well.  The fight for civilization is only just beginning.

     

     


    2 responses to “The 2020 Theft Saved the Country”

  • Repost from Election Day, 2016: Catholics Must Support Trump

    This is an unredacted repost from 8 November 2016.  My opinion of Trump is higher now than it was then.  But the piece is basically on the right track and I stand by it. I threw the dice for Trump and the sequel showed that I was right to do so.  I was vindicated in my prediction that he would appoint conservative justices to SCOTUS.  That was and is a big deal. 

    …………………..

    It is astonishing that there are Catholics who vote Democrat, when the Dems are the abortion party, and lately and increasingly a threat to religious liberty to boot.  How then could any practicing Catholic vote for Hillary or support Hillary by voting for neither Hillary nor Trump?

    So here's my final appeal on Election Day.  It consists of a repost from August, substantially redacted, and an addendum in which I reproduce a recent bit of text  from George Weigel.

    ………………….

    Could a Catholic Support Trump?

    Via Burgess-Jackson, I came to this piece by Robert P. George and George Weigel, An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics (7 March 2016).  Appended to it is a list of distinguished signatories.   Excerpt:

    Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States. His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity. His appeals to racial and ethnic fears and prejudice are offensive to any genuinely Catholic sensibility. He promised to order U.S. military personnel to torture terrorist suspects and to kill terrorists’ families — actions condemned by the Church and policies that would bring shame upon our country. And there is nothing in his campaign or his previous record that gives us grounds for confidence that he genuinely shares our commitments to the right to life, to religious freedom and the rights of conscience, to rebuilding the marriage culture, or to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government.          

    I will respond to these points seriatim.    

    A. It is true that Trump is unfit to be president, but so is Hillary.  But that is the choice we face now that Trump has secured the Republican nomination.  In the politics of the real world, as opposed to the politics of utopia, it will be either Trump or Hillary: not both and not neither.  Are they equally unfit for the presidency? Arguably yes at the level of character.  But at the level of policy no clear-thinking conservative or Catholic could possibly do anything to aid Hillary, whether by voting for her or by not voting for Trump.  Consider just abortion and religious liberty and ask yourself which candidate is more likely to forward an agenda favorable to Catholics.

    B.  Yes, Trump has taken vulgarity in politics to new depths.  Unlike milquetoast conservatives, however, he knows how to fight back against political enemies. He doesn't apologize and he doesn't wilt in the face of leftist lies and abuse.   He realizes that in post-consensus politics there is little or no place for civility.  There is no advantage in being civil to the viciously uncivil.  He realizes that the Alinskyite tactics the uncivil Left has been using for decades have to be turned against them.  To paraphrase Barack Obama, he understands that one needs to bring a gun to a gun fight.

    C. The third sentence above, the one about appeals to racial fears,  is something one would expect from a race-baiting leftist, not from a conservative.  Besides, it borders on slander, something I should think a Catholic would want to avoid.  

    You slander Trump and his supporters when you ignore his and their entirely legitimate concern for the rule of law and for national sovereignty and suggest that what motivates him and them is bigotry and fear.  Trump and Trump alone among the candidates has had the courage to face the Islamist threat to our country and to call for the vetting of Muslim immigrants. That is just common sense.   The milquetoast conservatives are so fearful of being branded xenophobes, 'Islamophobes,' and racists and so desirous of being liked and accepted in respectable Establishment circles, that they will not speak out against the threat. 

    If they had, and if they had been courageous conservatives on other issues, there would be no need for Trump, he would have gained no traction, and his manifest negatives would have sunk him.  Trump's traction is a direct result of conservative inaction.  The milquetoasts and bow-tie boys need to look in the mirror and own up to their complicity in having created Trump the politician.  But of course they will not do that; they will waste their energy attacking Trump, the only hope we have, in violation of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.  What a sorry bunch of self-serving pussy-wussies!  They yap and scribble, but when it comes time to act and show civil courage, they wilt.  They need to peer into a mirror; they will then know what a quisling looks like.

    Reagan11CommdmtWeb

    D. I concede that Trump's remarks about torture ought to worry a Catholic. But you should also realize that Trump's strategy is to shoot his mouth off like a rude, New York working stiff in order to energize his base, to intimidate his enemies, and to draw free media attention to himself.  Then in prepared speeches he 'walks back' his unguarded comments and adds the necessary qualifications. It is a brilliant strategy, and it has worked.

    Trump understands that politics is a practical struggle.  It takes place in the street, in a broad sense of the  term, not in the seminar room.  We intellectuals cringe at Trump's absurd exaggerations, but Trump knows that Joe Sixpack and the blue-collared guys who do the real work of the world have contempt for 'pointy-headed intellekshuls' and he knows that the way to reach them is by speaking their language.

    E. It is true that Trump's previous record supplies a reason to doubt whether Trump really shares Catholic commitments.  But is it not possible that he has 'evolved'?  You say the 'evolution' is merely opportunistic? That may well be.  But how much does it matter what his motives are if he helps with the conservative agenda?  It is obvious that his own ego and its enhancement is the cynosure of all his striving.  He is out for himself, first, and a patriot, second.  But Hillary is also out for herself, first, and she is manifestly not a patriot but a destructive hate-America leftist who will work to advance Obama's "fundamental transformation of America."  (No one who loves his country seeks a fundamental transformation of it.)

    We KNOW what Hillary and her ilk and entourage will do.  We KNOW she will be  inimical "to the right to life, to religious freedom and the rights of conscience, to rebuilding the marriage culture, or to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government." Now I grant you that Trump is unreliable, mercurial, flaky, and other bad things to boot.  But it is a very good bet that some of what he and his entourage will do will advance the conservative agenda.  Trump is espousing the Right ideas, and it is they that count.  Can't stand him as a person?  Vote for him as a vehicle of the Right ideas!

    So I say: if you are a conservative or a Catholic and you do not vote for Trump, you are a damned fool!  Look in the mirror and see the quisling who is worried about his status in 'respectable society.'

    Companion post: Social Justice or Subsidiarity?

    Here is what George Weigel has to say in NRO today:

    The most obvious con is the Trumpian one. Over the past year, the Republican party was captured by a narcissistic buccaneer who repudiated most of what conservatism and the Republican party have stood for over the past half-century, cast venomous aspersions on Republican leaders and those manifestly more qualified than he is for president, insulted our fellow citizens, demeaned women and minorities, played footsy with the Russian dictator Putin, threw NATO under the bus, displayed a dismal ignorance of both the Constitution and the grave matters at stake in current public-policy debates — and in general behaved like a vulgar, sinister bore. In doing all this, Trump the con artist confirmed in the eyes of a partisan mainstream media every one of its false conceptions of what modern conservatism stands for and is prepared to do when entrusted with the tasks of governance.

    This outburst does not merit reply beyond what I have said above and elsewhere; Weigel the man needs to seek help for a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    But one last shot:  as for the Constitution, we KNOW that Hillary will shred it; Trump, however, has promised to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and he has provided a list.  How can anyone's head be so far up his nether hole as not to understand this?

    The nation is at a tipping point.  Do your bit to save it.


    One response to “Repost from Election Day, 2016: Catholics Must Support Trump”

  • Why Israel Deserves Our Support

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali


  • ‘Liberal’ Signage

    I happened across the following professionally-made sign the other morning:

    NO ILLEGAL DUMPING

    I kid you not. 


  • Peace through Strength: A Variation on the Theme

    Your willingness to be conciliatory will be taken for weakness unless you are perceived to be dangerous.


  • Political Desideratum

    As much liberty as possible under as little law as is necessary.


  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: October Jazz

    October already! October's a bird that flies too fast. Time herself is such a bird. I would freeze her flight, but not that of

    Charley 'Bird' Parker, Ornithology

    Jack Kerouac and Steve Allen, Charlie Parker

    Kerouac and Allen, October in the Railroad Earth

    Jack Kerouac, San Francisco

    Mose Allison, Parchman Farm.

    This one goes out to Tom Gastineau, keyboard man in our bands Dudley Nightshade and Rosedale, who introduced me to Mose Allison and Herbie Hancock in the late '60s. Tom went on to make it in the music business. I caught Allison at The Lighthouse in Hermosa Beach, California, a couple or three times before I headed East in August of '73.  I heard him on the East Coast as well at a joint in Marblehead, Massachusetts with a girlfriend  I dubbed 'Springtime Mary'  which was Kerouac's name for his girlfriend Mary Carney.

    Mose Allison, Young Man's Blues

    Mose Allison, I Ain't Got Nothing but the Blues

    Dave Brubeck, Blue Rondo al a Turk

    Herbie Hancock, Watermelon Man


  • Are Trad Catholics a Protestant Sect?

    One of the more interesting blog posts I have run across recently. 


    One response to “Are Trad Catholics a Protestant Sect?”

  • Robert Giroux

    Catholic bookman and editor of Merton, Kerouac, Flannery O' Connor, and Walker Percy, to name just four. 


  • Is Religion Escapist?

    Top o' the Stack


  • Moderate?

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Liz Cheney, one of Donald Trump’s fiercest Republican antagonists, will join Democrat Kamala Harris at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Thursday aimed at reaching out to moderate voters and rattling the former president. (emphasis added)

    The implication, of course, is that Trump's policies are extreme.  What we have here, once again, is political projection: unwilling to admit their own extremism, the extremist Dems project it into their political opponents. And Turncoat Liz goes right along with it. She is one of the more repulsive of the RINOs.  

    The Dems embrace a number of extreme, and extremely deleterious, policies. I challenge anyone to point to one of Trump's policies that is extreme.  Policies, not personality. He is not Mr. Nice Guy, like Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. But how effective is a guy like that in the clinch?

    UPDATE (10/5):  A Dem sees the light.


    3 responses to “Moderate?




Philosophy Weblogs



Other Websites