Sunday Morning Sermon: Moral Failure

We fall back again and again into our old bad habits because of our weakness on all levels: the flesh, the heart, the will, and the intellect. Our minds are dark, our wills are weak, our hearts are foul. How do we know this? By honest self-examination and a refusal to evade the truth.  

The will is not strong enough to tame the animal in us and control its natural tendencies; but it is strong enough to suborn the intellect and persuade it to rationalize the free will's wrong decisions.

A will too weak to tame the flesh is yet strong enough to suborn the intellect.

Because we cannot significantly improve ourselves by our own efforts, we must seek help elsewhere, but obviously not from those who are as wretched as we are, which is to say, from fellow human beings.

A Philosopher’s Prayer

We are grateful for this quotidian bread, Lord, but it is not for it that we pray. Grant us the panem supersubstantialis, the bread supersubstantial, that nourishes the mind and heart. It is for this bread that we must beg, unable as we are to secure it by our own powers. The daily bread that nourishes the flesh we can gain for ourselves.

……………..

For the theology behind the prayer, see "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread."

The Value of Philosophy

What good is philosophy?

It teaches humility in point of knowledge and belief. It lays bare the infirmity of reason. It prompts us to seek other sources of insight, including mystical intuition and divine revelation, while supplying us with the tools for their evaluation and critique. Its problems, though insoluble, can serve as koans.

Good philosophy debunks bad philosophy, pseudo-philosophy, scientism, epistemic pretense, bad religion, and bad politics. It is a mighty curb on fanaticism of all sorts, that of the religionists as well as that of the anti-religionists. It keeps Jerusalem in check even while it is itself fed and enlivened by Hierosolymic themes and tropes. While serving as prophylaxis on excess and overreach, it yet makes possible a reasoned faith and a reasoned mysticism.

And it does all of this critically and skeptically in the best sense of the term: in the spirit of rational inquiry.  It is an enemy of the dogmatism of the religionists and that of politically correct leftist anti-religionists.

So philosophy, while in some ways miserable, is in many ways magnificent.

In any case it is necessary for the good life and worthy of spirited defense, with blood and iron if need be, against the anti-civilizational  forces of leftism and radical Islam which work in synergy, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

The Misery of Philosophy II

One goes round and round on the dialectical merry-go-round. Thoughts lead to thoughts which lead to more thoughts, including inconclusive thoughts, semantically indeterminate thoughts, mutually contradictory thoughts. Words beget words unto endlessness. On the side of the subject one never penetrates to the source of thoughts. And on the side of the object one never arrives at the root of the real. 

I would understand subjectivity and existence. But I am stymied by the infirmity of reason.

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Torch Songs

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

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

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

Billie Holliday, The Very Thought of You

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

Peggy Lee, Oh You Crazy Moon. 

Ketty Lester, Love Letters.  

Etta James, At Last

Lenny Welch, Since I Fell For You

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

Kay Starr, Stormy Weather

Julie London, When I Fall in Love

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

Not a torch song, but the video is cute: 

Jay and the Americans, Come a Little Bit Closer

UPDATE (11/5)

Ed contributes:

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

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

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

It Speaks Volumes

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

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

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

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

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

What Trump Could Say to Obama

"You didn't build that!"

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

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

Related: Who Built the Internet? Obama's Straw Man Fallacy

Paul Gottfried on Propositionalism

Here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some words and phrases are not candidates for semantic rehabilitation. 

Related articles
A Version of Alt-Right Identitarianism
Maverick Philosopher: Will the Culture War Issue in Civil War?
Are We Really Talking about Nationalism?

Latest Georgetown University Outrage

More proof that leftists are termites:

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

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

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

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

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