MyBlogs
/
personal-blog
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

add shortcodes for absolute and relative urls that can open in new tabs

This commit is contained in:
Greg Gauthier 2022-01-05 18:17:35 +00:00
parent 7cc9dee704
commit b90712acea
24 changed files with 49 additions and 33 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
content/post/a-conservative-starter-library.md
View File

@ -11,22 +11,22 @@ Here are some 20th century books that guided me away from contemporary American
Philosophical:
1. {{< newtab title="After Virtue (1984), Alasdair MacIntyre" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory/dp/0268035040/" >}} - This book began my divorce with both Enlightenment modernism, and the English analytical tradition. MacIntyre makes a powerful case for Aristotelian ethics, and against the Germans, especially. I see virtue ethics (in whatever form) as core to any coherent conservative worldview. MacIntyre did not take the Aristotelian turn until very late in his life. This book was the testament to that turning. His ultimate vision is of a communitarian society, which I disagree with somewhat, but elements of it are essential (particularly, the relational element of society).
1. {{< abstab title="After Virtue (1984), Alasdair MacIntyre" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory/dp/0268035040/" >}} - This book began my divorce with both Enlightenment modernism, and the English analytical tradition. MacIntyre makes a powerful case for Aristotelian ethics, and against the Germans, especially. I see virtue ethics (in whatever form) as core to any coherent conservative worldview. MacIntyre did not take the Aristotelian turn until very late in his life. This book was the testament to that turning. His ultimate vision is of a communitarian society, which I disagree with somewhat, but elements of it are essential (particularly, the relational element of society).
2. {{< newtab title="The Closing Of The American Mind (1987), Alan Bloom" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Closing-American-Mind-Bloom-Allan/dp/B00E3FSO5G/" >}} - A scathing critique of the contemporary higher education system, it's drift toward radicalism, and its obsession with self-annihilation. Bloom was not a conservative, himself (he was an openly gay New York Jew, in fact). Which makes this book even more potent. He knew were all the bodies were buried. His critique of modern music was somewhat silly, but the challenge to Nihilism in this book was extremely important to me.
2. {{< abstab title="The Closing Of The American Mind (1987), Alan Bloom" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Closing-American-Mind-Bloom-Allan/dp/B00E3FSO5G/" >}} - A scathing critique of the contemporary higher education system, it's drift toward radicalism, and its obsession with self-annihilation. Bloom was not a conservative, himself (he was an openly gay New York Jew, in fact). Which makes this book even more potent. He knew were all the bodies were buried. His critique of modern music was somewhat silly, but the challenge to Nihilism in this book was extremely important to me.
3. {{< newtab title="On Human Conduct (1974), Michael Oakeshott" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Conduct-Clarendon-Paperbacks/dp/019827758X/" >}} - Particularly parts II and III, in which Oakeshott outlines first, a view of civil society that offers a form of individualism that emphasizes the relational aspects of what he calls the "civil condition". More plainly: the need for good relationships as the ground of healthy civil society. Second, an analysis of political development in Europe focusing on the transition from medieval religious states, to secular Enlightenment states. It helped to begin the resuscitation of medieval philosophy for me.
3. {{< abstab title="On Human Conduct (1974), Michael Oakeshott" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Conduct-Clarendon-Paperbacks/dp/019827758X/" >}} - Particularly parts II and III, in which Oakeshott outlines first, a view of civil society that offers a form of individualism that emphasizes the relational aspects of what he calls the "civil condition". More plainly: the need for good relationships as the ground of healthy civil society. Second, an analysis of political development in Europe focusing on the transition from medieval religious states, to secular Enlightenment states. It helped to begin the resuscitation of medieval philosophy for me.
4. {{< newtab title="The Constitution of Liberty (1960), F. A. Hayek" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitution-Liberty-Routledge-Classics/dp/041540424X/" >}} - Everyone who mentions Hayek, inevitably does so to mention The Road To Serfdom. While that was a decent critique for its time, The Constitution of Liberty is, in my view, a much more compelling book. Hayek provides an understanding of the market in this book that is an absolute wake-up call to Rothbardian libertarians. If you cannot answer Hayek's challenges, you cannot remain a libertarian.
4. {{< abstab title="The Constitution of Liberty (1960), F. A. Hayek" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitution-Liberty-Routledge-Classics/dp/041540424X/" >}} - Everyone who mentions Hayek, inevitably does so to mention The Road To Serfdom. While that was a decent critique for its time, The Constitution of Liberty is, in my view, a much more compelling book. Hayek provides an understanding of the market in this book that is an absolute wake-up call to Rothbardian libertarians. If you cannot answer Hayek's challenges, you cannot remain a libertarian.
Political:
1. {{< newtab title="Up From Liberalism (1959), William F. Buckley" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Up-Liberalism-William-F-Buckley/dp/161427925X/" >}} - A wickedly funny critique of the growing phenomenon of "progressive" liberalism in the late 1950s. Also, a tongue-in-cheek play on the title of Booker T. Washington's book "Up From Slavery". Much of this book still remains relevant today, and is a testament to Buckley's prescience and insight. Gore Vidal may have bested him on TV, but Buckley was the clear winner, with the pen.
1. {{< abstab title="Up From Liberalism (1959), William F. Buckley" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Up-Liberalism-William-F-Buckley/dp/161427925X/" >}} - A wickedly funny critique of the growing phenomenon of "progressive" liberalism in the late 1950s. Also, a tongue-in-cheek play on the title of Booker T. Washington's book "Up From Slavery". Much of this book still remains relevant today, and is a testament to Buckley's prescience and insight. Gore Vidal may have bested him on TV, but Buckley was the clear winner, with the pen.
2. {{< newtab title="Who Are We? (2004), Samuel P. Huntington" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541/" >}} - just after the turn of the millenium, and post-9/11, Huntington released this little forgotten gem of a book, in which he more-or-less kicks off the "identity" debate which rages to this day: what does it mean to be an "American"? What is it that a Conservative is actually "conserving"? It touches on race, geography, language, religion, and ethnic conflict. It makes some policy prescriptions I find disagreeable, but the discussion around what constitutes a political (aka civic) identity is absolutely fundamental, and it does it primarily from a conservative point of view. This book also pre-sages much later books like Douglas Murray's "Strange Death of Europe".
2. {{< abstab title="Who Are We? (2004), Samuel P. Huntington" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541/" >}} - just after the turn of the millenium, and post-9/11, Huntington released this little forgotten gem of a book, in which he more-or-less kicks off the "identity" debate which rages to this day: what does it mean to be an "American"? What is it that a Conservative is actually "conserving"? It touches on race, geography, language, religion, and ethnic conflict. It makes some policy prescriptions I find disagreeable, but the discussion around what constitutes a political (aka civic) identity is absolutely fundamental, and it does it primarily from a conservative point of view. This book also pre-sages much later books like Douglas Murray's "Strange Death of Europe".
3. {{< newtab title="The Tempting of America (1990), Robert Bork" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tempting-America-Political-Seduction-Law/dp/0684843374/" >}} - In addition to being a personal account of Bork's Supreme Court nomination battle, it is a masterful critique of most of the key supreme court decisions up to that point in history. Bork offers a rigorous defense of what is now called "the originalist position", and absolutely trounces concepts like the "living document". This book should be required reading in high school civics, if there were such a thing anymore.
3. {{< abstab title="The Tempting of America (1990), Robert Bork" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tempting-America-Political-Seduction-Law/dp/0684843374/" >}} - In addition to being a personal account of Bork's Supreme Court nomination battle, it is a masterful critique of most of the key supreme court decisions up to that point in history. Bork offers a rigorous defense of what is now called "the originalist position", and absolutely trounces concepts like the "living document". This book should be required reading in high school civics, if there were such a thing anymore.
4. {{< newtab title="The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (2001), Russell Kirk" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conservative-Mind-Russell-Kirk/dp/1492930717/" >}} - This book is more historical pastiche than original thought, but it's well worth the read, for two reasons (a) it's a great place to start, if you're interested in conservative thought throughout history, and (b) it's an excellent window into the modern conservative interpretation of historical thinkers who would not have recognized what we call conservatism today.
4. {{< abstab title="The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (2001), Russell Kirk" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conservative-Mind-Russell-Kirk/dp/1492930717/" >}} - This book is more historical pastiche than original thought, but it's well worth the read, for two reasons (a) it's a great place to start, if you're interested in conservative thought throughout history, and (b) it's an excellent window into the modern conservative interpretation of historical thinkers who would not have recognized what we call conservatism today.
There are many others that deserve mention, but they'll have to wait for now.

2
content/post/a-critique-of-the-declaration-of-independence.md
View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: true
---
{{< note >}}
EDITORS NOTE: A much improved analysis of the Declaration is now available in a four-part series I did between {{< newtab title="July 1 and July 4 of 2020." url="/post/the-declaration-of-independence-part-1-a-decent-respect/" >}} This is being maintained for archival and reference purposes only ~ Greg. 1 Dec. 2021
EDITORS NOTE: A much improved analysis of the Declaration is now available in a four-part series I did between {{< reltab title="July 1 and July 4 of 2020." url="/post/the-declaration-of-independence-part-1-a-decent-respect/" >}} This is being maintained for archival and reference purposes only ~ Greg. 1 Dec. 2021
{{< /note >}}
----

2
content/post/bork-on-ideology-in-the-court.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/bork.jpg
draft: false
---
From the book "{{< newtab title="The Tempting Of America (1991)" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tempting-America-Political-Seduction-Law/dp/0684843374/" >}}, By Robert Bork
From the book "{{< abstab title="The Tempting Of America (1991)" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tempting-America-Political-Seduction-Law/dp/0684843374/" >}}, By Robert Bork
> ...It is somewhat unclear whether the modern Court is more politicized than Courts of previous eras. Certainly it makes more political decisions each year than was true in any year in the nineteenth century, but that is largely due to the number of occasions for such decisions presented to it. Before the post-Civil War amendments, particularly the fourteenth amendment, the Court had little opportunity to impose rules on the states. The development of substantive content in the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause, and subsequently the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in that clause, enormously expanded the Court’s power over the states. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that, the Courts of the nineteenth century, given the opportunities that this legal structure presented, would have appeared as activist and political as do the Courts of the past five or six decades.

6
content/post/justice-culture-and-the-enlightenment.md
View File

@ -17,9 +17,9 @@ All that changed, I think, with the rise of Christianity. No longer is some noti
The United States would appear to be the final political expression of that transformation. But, if the goal was a single, unifying ideal, then the project is incomplete. American society seems to be grounded in not one, but two sacred values given to it by the Enlightenment: Liberty and Equality. These ideals on their own are not unique to the United States, but they are unique in their combination and expression in the United States. Even in the country that is their intellectual home, they are combined with yet a third ideal that, arguably, stands as the real primary — and it harkens back to the pre-medieval heritage of the nation. I am, of course, speaking of France, and its famous triumvirate of ideals: Liberty, Equality, and *Fraternity*. Fraternity, however, is not understood by the French as Schiller or Goethe would have meant it (as a universal brotherhood of all men). Rather, it is indeed a statement of ethno-cultural solidarity. It is the Frankish People, who love their pastoral homeland, whose sacred heart is Paris, and out of whose ranks rose such renowned names as Charlemagne, Louis IX, Rousseau, Robespierre, Napoleon, de Gaul, Sartre, and Foucault. This sort of tribal identification is the bit that is missing from the American political ethos. Even the Russians, with their nearly eighty year long dysfunctional love-hate relationship with Marxism, have been unable to shake their ethno-cultural tribal identity as a core political value over and above the Communist egalitarianism that nearly destroyed them.
The “American People”, such as they are, have always been a hodge-podge of ethnic and social confusions. At first, loosely affiliated colonial villages made up of Dutch, English, Spanish, and French settlers and explorers, all arrayed more or less against the indigenous populations. Because the English were the dominant presence in the colonies, it is their legal culture and political philosophy that dominate the institutions of those early settlements. For the English, an early form of individual sovereignty grounded in property rights derived mainly from colonial corporate charters and the heritage of the Magna Carta put Liberty front and center as the core value of that society[^7]. Their most successful political competitors were the French, and the colonial period also happens to be the most productive period for the French segment of the Enlightenment. For thinkers like Rousseau, the highest ideal was Equality (see his {{< newtab title="Discourses on Inequality," url="https://aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/DiscourseonInequality.pdf879500092.pdf" >}} for example). Thus, this too became a motivating force in early colonial life, and later alloyed to Liberty, the composed the dual pillars of the American polity. Yet, apart from their shared experience of extreme hardship on the frontier of a new continent, there was very little on offer in the way of a tribal identity known as “American”. Instead, the label was as sort of circumstantial short-hand. It’s true that de Tocqueville use the term “American” in a quasi-ethnic sense, but his use invoked an imaginative idea of the Puritans as a way to characterize the attitudes of all who populated the newly formed nation. In general the term “American” was just a convenient way of referring to the people who chose to live on the new continent, be they English, French, Dutch, Spanish, or eventually Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese, or later still, Turkish, Greek, Polish, and Arab.
The “American People”, such as they are, have always been a hodge-podge of ethnic and social confusions. At first, loosely affiliated colonial villages made up of Dutch, English, Spanish, and French settlers and explorers, all arrayed more or less against the indigenous populations. Because the English were the dominant presence in the colonies, it is their legal culture and political philosophy that dominate the institutions of those early settlements. For the English, an early form of individual sovereignty grounded in property rights derived mainly from colonial corporate charters and the heritage of the Magna Carta put Liberty front and center as the core value of that society[^7]. Their most successful political competitors were the French, and the colonial period also happens to be the most productive period for the French segment of the Enlightenment. For thinkers like Rousseau, the highest ideal was Equality (see his {{< abstab title="Discourses on Inequality," url="https://aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/DiscourseonInequality.pdf879500092.pdf" >}} for example). Thus, this too became a motivating force in early colonial life, and later alloyed to Liberty, the composed the dual pillars of the American polity. Yet, apart from their shared experience of extreme hardship on the frontier of a new continent, there was very little on offer in the way of a tribal identity known as “American”. Instead, the label was as sort of circumstantial short-hand. It’s true that de Tocqueville use the term “American” in a quasi-ethnic sense, but his use invoked an imaginative idea of the Puritans as a way to characterize the attitudes of all who populated the newly formed nation. In general the term “American” was just a convenient way of referring to the people who chose to live on the new continent, be they English, French, Dutch, Spanish, or eventually Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese, or later still, Turkish, Greek, Polish, and Arab.
The implications of this are staggering. For the first time in human history, you have an entire continent that represents a veritable blank-slate upon which could be inscribed any and all of the human yearning to learn and grow and explore, and it just so happened to coincide with the explosion of Enlightenment idealism in the popular culture — the secular philosophical cousin of the ancient Catholic ideal of the “universal church”. It is this highly religious notion of Enlightenment universalism that envelopes and informs the American understanding of the ideals of Liberty and Equality. The words of Paul in Galatians must have been ringing in Jefferson’s ears, as he penned the first words of the Declaration of Independence: “*there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus…*” ({{< newtab title="Galatians 3:28" url="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Galatians-3-28/" >}}).
The implications of this are staggering. For the first time in human history, you have an entire continent that represents a veritable blank-slate upon which could be inscribed any and all of the human yearning to learn and grow and explore, and it just so happened to coincide with the explosion of Enlightenment idealism in the popular culture — the secular philosophical cousin of the ancient Catholic ideal of the “universal church”. It is this highly religious notion of Enlightenment universalism that envelopes and informs the American understanding of the ideals of Liberty and Equality. The words of Paul in Galatians must have been ringing in Jefferson’s ears, as he penned the first words of the Declaration of Independence: “*there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus…*” ({{< abstab title="Galatians 3:28" url="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Galatians-3-28/" >}}).
It is this universalism that acts as the “glue” binding Liberty and Equality together, and it is this universalism that some have tried to engineer into a new kind of limitless ethno-cultural identity, which could function as a final form of tribal identity: the tribe of the human race. But this is a mistake. Enlightenment universalism cannot replace tribal allegiance, and it cannot function as a higher-order value to which Liberty and Equality must pay homage. First, because it is limitless and tribes, by definition, are limited to specific very concrete characteristics. Second, because it lacks the particularity of its original religious parent. The “universal church” works, because it offers Christ up as a kind of ideal man, which functions as a model for emulation, and upon which can be focused our moral aspirations. Enlightenment universalism offers only the ecstatic sentiment of Schiller’s “spark of divinity” found in all men alike, but no guide as to what to do about that spark.
@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The debate between the two most prominent theorists of distributive justice in t
To an extent, both men are correct. Contrary to some who claim that Liberty and Equality are consonant ideals, it does seem fairly clear that taken to their limits, these ideals are direct competitors (and at the present moment of history, it appears Equality may have gained the high ground against Liberty). What’s more, I am not convinced that a reconciliation is possible between them. The reason is because these ideals are *moral principles*, fundamentally. Any society that is organized around a moral principle (rather than, say, a primitive need, a tribal identity, or a secondary cause) is going to work to expand the scope of the principle as a means of perfecting the society relative to it. Liberty is one of those principles that, when extended to its limit, is incapable of admitting any other principle. It begins with the liberty to do what you must; extends to the liberty to do what you can, in the face of material obstacles; and finally ends with the liberty to do as you please, regardless of material or moral constraints. Likewise with Equality. At first, the concern is for procedural fairness, and impartiality, i.e. “equality before the law”; it extends to notions like “equality of opportunity” and “equality of regard” (which we can see overtaking the culture of the west now); and finally ends in absolute equality, in which the state spends all of its effort on capture and redistribution of all inequalities, regardless of material contingency or moral justification. It is at these extremes where we can see Rawls and Nozick intuitively anticipating the failure of each others’ doctrines.
The implications for the United States (and to some extent, the UK and Europe) are dire. As mentioned above, our political society is grounded on both of these ideals, and as I’ve shown here with at least these two ideals, no society can sustain itself, where competing ideals form its foundation. Eventually, factions will form around these ideals, and the inevitably irreconcilable conflict will fracture it. Already, we could see this conflict bubbling up in the 19th century. But I think it was averted by the Civil War. Just at the moment that Liberty and Equality were sure to drive the union itself into dissolution, Lincoln appeared and elevated a third principle above them. He made this explicit in his famous {{< newtab title="Gettysburg Address." url="https://www.britannica.com/event/Gettysburg-Address" >}} He says of the federal union, that it was “*conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal*“. He understands the dual moral loyalties of the Founders. And, he realizes what is needed to reconcile the conflict. He shifts the language. He calls the United States a *nation*, and insists that we have a duty before God, and a sacred debt to the dead, to insure that it “never perishes from the earth”. Union, then, becomes the overarching principle, to which Liberty and Equality are subordinated. His “new birth of freedom” is a demotion for both equality and freedom. But subordination might be exactly what is needed.
The implications for the United States (and to some extent, the UK and Europe) are dire. As mentioned above, our political society is grounded on both of these ideals, and as I’ve shown here with at least these two ideals, no society can sustain itself, where competing ideals form its foundation. Eventually, factions will form around these ideals, and the inevitably irreconcilable conflict will fracture it. Already, we could see this conflict bubbling up in the 19th century. But I think it was averted by the Civil War. Just at the moment that Liberty and Equality were sure to drive the union itself into dissolution, Lincoln appeared and elevated a third principle above them. He made this explicit in his famous {{< abstab title="Gettysburg Address." url="https://www.britannica.com/event/Gettysburg-Address" >}} He says of the federal union, that it was “*conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal*“. He understands the dual moral loyalties of the Founders. And, he realizes what is needed to reconcile the conflict. He shifts the language. He calls the United States a *nation*, and insists that we have a duty before God, and a sacred debt to the dead, to insure that it “never perishes from the earth”. Union, then, becomes the overarching principle, to which Liberty and Equality are subordinated. His “new birth of freedom” is a demotion for both equality and freedom. But subordination might be exactly what is needed.
Other than a concrete goal such as the self-preservation of an existing state (the preservation of the American union, for example), or an arbitrary notion like ethno-cultural identity (particular heritages such as the Frankish, Slavic, English, etc), or a religious commitment (i.e. a theocracy), it is not clear what could fill the role of ultimate purpose, to which all other ideals could be subordinated. I am well aware of the spectre I am raising in all this talk of ethno-cultural solidarity and theocracy. The tribal instinct in man is a powerful one, and a deadly one. I am clear-eyed about the very real threat it presents. At the same time, I am also aware that the sort of quirky experiment that the Enlightenment was, is an aberration in human history, that it is frightfully young and vulnerable, and that it makes extreme counter-evolutionary demands upon us that I suspect are unsustainable. Recent naive utopian attempts at achieving those counter-evolutionary dreams have largely been a horror show of their own.

2
content/post/kant-vs-anselm-vs-cary.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/philosophy-and-religion.jpg
draft: false
---
I have been listening to {{< newtab title="this lecture series" url="https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Philosophy-and-Religion-in-the-West-Audiobook/B00DEQO5US/" >}} to supplement the readings in my philosophy of religion course.
I have been listening to {{< abstab title="this lecture series" url="https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Philosophy-and-Religion-in-the-West-Audiobook/B00DEQO5US/" >}} to supplement the readings in my philosophy of religion course.
In the first Kant lecture, Cary says that Kant argues against Anselm on the ground that being isn't a property. It goes a little something like this:

2
content/post/marxism-as-false-religion.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/marxist_professors.jpg
draft: false
---
The 'marxist professor' (Glenn Bracey, Villanova) highlighted by {{< newtab title="the video linked in this article" url="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/busted-professor-admits-critical-race-theory-build-church-marxism-video/" >}} is not wrong in the most broad outline, about Marx's theory of alienation, as a critique of commodity markets. He just so mangled and misapplied the concept that it's almost unrecognisable.
The 'marxist professor' (Glenn Bracey, Villanova) highlighted by {{< abstab title="the video linked in this article" url="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/busted-professor-admits-critical-race-theory-build-church-marxism-video/" >}} is not wrong in the most broad outline, about Marx's theory of alienation, as a critique of commodity markets. He just so mangled and misapplied the concept that it's almost unrecognisable.
The theory of alienation is about the separation of human activity from fundamental human nature. It's a metaphysical theory about where value derives from in the products of human labor. It is not a "spiritual concern" (whatever that means). Marx was a materialist, not an idealist. Marx rejected Christianity as just another ideology (one that, on his view, appropriated the problem of suffering to its own ends). So this guy's attempt to incorporate liberal Christian sympathy into his analysis is purely cynical. What's more, this 'professor' is clearly differentiating between multiple human natures. Note how and where he says "our species being!" - he means, black people have a fundamentally different nature than white people, and that living in western society is alienating black people from their nature, because western society is 'white'.

2
content/post/movie-review-planet-of-the-apes-1968.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/planet-of-the-apes.jpg
draft: false
---
This is only the second movie review I’ve ever done. The first was for my old video channel, which you can find on my new video channel, {{< newtab title="here" url="https://www.bitchute.com/video/81dzu2ZJmGbz/" >}}. I don’t do “standard” movie reviews, because I know nothing of film production, the arcane science of camera angles and lighting, or the fine art of “pacing”, and “tone”, let alone the intricacies of acting. But once in a while, the allegorical meaning of a film jumps out at me, and I can’t help but write about it. That is what a “movie review” is, for me, and Planet of the Apes is one such film.
This is only the second movie review I’ve ever done. The first was for my old video channel, which you can find on my new video channel, {{< abstab title="here" url="https://www.bitchute.com/video/81dzu2ZJmGbz/" >}}. I don’t do “standard” movie reviews, because I know nothing of film production, the arcane science of camera angles and lighting, or the fine art of “pacing”, and “tone”, let alone the intricacies of acting. But once in a while, the allegorical meaning of a film jumps out at me, and I can’t help but write about it. That is what a “movie review” is, for me, and Planet of the Apes is one such film.
Before I get started, I should note that the original book (which is written by a French novelist, by the way, the significance of which will make itself apparent shortly) deviates significantly from the movie in only a few ways: (1) The protagonist’s name is changed from Ulysses to (George) Taylor. This seems important to me, given the reference to Homer inherent in the name. This will make itself apparent as the review proceeds. (2) In the book, Ulysses and Nova give birth to a son. The movie only hints as the sexual nature of the relationship, and their is no room for a child. I think this is an improvement on the book, actually. The fact that it is left up to the viewer to imagine, gives the story more allegorical power. (3) Taylor, unlike Ulysses, never leaves the planet once he’s crashed. His “return home” is pure revelation, which again, I think makes it an improvement on the original novel. (4) Taylor, unlike Ulysses, is refused access to any clothing at all. This is also an improvement on the novel, because helps to visually illustrate the inversion in the story, and to emphasize the primitiveness of Taylor’s state of mind. Anyway, on to the review.

2
content/post/negotiating-the-value-of-a-single-life.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/omelas.jpg
draft: false
---
In 1973, Ursula Le Guin wrote a {{< newtab title="short story about a utopian city called 'Omelas'." url="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/docs/omelas.pdf" >}} The story is, at its core, a philosophical thought experiment. To summarize: Let's just accept for the sake of argument, a city that is so self-sufficient, and so devoid of want or suffering or strife that the people of the city were able to live in an unceasing state of joyous bliss. Every season involved weeks-long festivals of celebration, and nobody was deprived of any need, material, moral, or psychological.
In 1973, Ursula Le Guin wrote a {{< abstab title="short story about a utopian city called 'Omelas'." url="https://gmgauthier.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/docs/omelas.pdf" >}} The story is, at its core, a philosophical thought experiment. To summarize: Let's just accept for the sake of argument, a city that is so self-sufficient, and so devoid of want or suffering or strife that the people of the city were able to live in an unceasing state of joyous bliss. Every season involved weeks-long festivals of celebration, and nobody was deprived of any need, material, moral, or psychological.
After spending three pages describing this blissful demos, and making a philosophical defense of the pleasure of happiness itself, she then says this:

2
content/post/philosophy-an-obituary.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/death-of-socrates.jpg
draft: false
---
Last night, I {{< newtab title="watched a debate" url="http://iai.tv/video/hawking-vs-philosophy" >}} between a journalist, a sociologist, and a scientist over whether or not philosophy is “dead” (as Stephen Hawking put it). Lewis Wolpert completely wiped the floor with the non-philosophers pitted against him. And sadly, he was also mostly correct. Philosophy has not done itself proud of late, and the fact that this panel didn’t actually include any philosophers to stand in its defense, is evidence that it is struggling, if not dead.
Last night, I {{< abstab title="watched a debate" url="http://iai.tv/video/hawking-vs-philosophy" >}} between a journalist, a sociologist, and a scientist over whether or not philosophy is “dead” (as Stephen Hawking put it). Lewis Wolpert completely wiped the floor with the non-philosophers pitted against him. And sadly, he was also mostly correct. Philosophy has not done itself proud of late, and the fact that this panel didn’t actually include any philosophers to stand in its defense, is evidence that it is struggling, if not dead.
Wolpert is absolutely right. Science, as a practice, is indeed nothing more than a means by which we can gradually make more and more confident predictions about the actual behaviour of reality. And this pursuit is purely ethics free. But rather than this point suggesting the death of philosophy, instead it actually begs its continued existence. Where did the hard sciences come from, after all? Philosophy. Biology from Natural Philosophy. Astronomy and Physics from Existential Philosophy (not Sartre’s Existentialism). Psychology and Neurology from Philosophy of the Mind. And so on. What's more, today, there is still no "science" of ethics, despite the efforts of celebrities like Sam Harris to argue otherwise.

2
content/post/philosophy-hypocrisy-and-failure.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/school-of-athens.jpg
draft: false
---
A moment of synchronicity occurred for me, yesterday morning. A Twitter user I follow fairly closely, tweeted about the decrepit state of Karl Marx's character (borrowing from Paul Johnson's famous book, {{< newtab title="*Intellectuals*" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170/" >}} ), and argued that Marxists would all invariably turn out like him. At nearly the same time, one of my fellow philosophy students on the University of London student Facebook group posted an apocryphal story about how pedantic and brittle Wittgenstein was toward his hosts the Keynes, and implied that this was what it meant to be an analytical philosopher.
A moment of synchronicity occurred for me, yesterday morning. A Twitter user I follow fairly closely, tweeted about the decrepit state of Karl Marx's character (borrowing from Paul Johnson's famous book, {{< abstab title="*Intellectuals*" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170/" >}} ), and argued that Marxists would all invariably turn out like him. At nearly the same time, one of my fellow philosophy students on the University of London student Facebook group posted an apocryphal story about how pedantic and brittle Wittgenstein was toward his hosts the Keynes, and implied that this was what it meant to be an analytical philosopher.
I find these declarations fascinating. I remember once having similar thoughts about Ayn Rand. Her philosophy was very explicitly about living according to a blend of Kantian rule-following, and Aristotelian praxis virtues (although, I am certain she would object to this characterization). This would result in a life of ecstatic goodness and beauty, according to her. But, if you know anything about the following she gathered in New York in the 1950s and early 1960s, you'll know that the attempt to realize the dream quickly became a self-induced nightmare, and a predictable tragedy in many ways.

2
content/post/soaping-with-rest.md
View File

@ -110,4 +110,4 @@ Request/Response headers:
![soapmock-2.png](/img/soapmock-2.png)
That's it. I hope this has been helpful. Incidentally, if you want to experiment with the code yourself, the repo is available **{{< newtab title="right here." url="https://gitea.gmgauthier.com/gmgauthier/soapmock" >}}** Enjoy!
That's it. I hope this has been helpful. Incidentally, if you want to experiment with the code yourself, the repo is available **{{< abstab title="right here." url="https://gitea.gmgauthier.com/gmgauthier/soapmock" >}}** Enjoy!

2
content/post/social-media-is-groupthink-programming.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/witch-trials.jpg
draft: false
---
I think something is deeply wrong with social media. Mainly, I think this about Twitter, but that may just be because Twitter is the most glaring symptom of whatever this problem is. The following is a short snippet from a podcast {{< newtab title="discussion between Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey" url="https://open.spotify.com/episode/60pgpGgZmGuQ0E4ho0L99c" >}} (dated **Feb. 2, 2019**). It's at the point where they're discussing the nature of the medium, and the various forms that content on Facebook and Twitter can take:
I think something is deeply wrong with social media. Mainly, I think this about Twitter, but that may just be because Twitter is the most glaring symptom of whatever this problem is. The following is a short snippet from a podcast {{< abstab title="discussion between Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey" url="https://open.spotify.com/episode/60pgpGgZmGuQ0E4ho0L99c" >}} (dated **Feb. 2, 2019**). It's at the point where they're discussing the nature of the medium, and the various forms that content on Facebook and Twitter can take:
----

2
content/post/steele-on-the-history-of-the-culture-war.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/steele-shame.jpg
draft: false
---
Shelby Steele, {{< newtab title="Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B06XCK22Q2/" >}}
Shelby Steele, {{< abstab title="Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B06XCK22Q2/" >}}
----

2
content/post/systemic-racism-is-real.md
View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: false
Martin Luther King, Jr. was the last black leader to point Americans to the divine inspiration in the Declaration of Independence, and to make us face our own hypocrisy honestly. We shot him dead for it. In his place, we substituted Lyndon Johnson, who sold us a false absolution from white guilt through condescending paternalism that maintained the status quo by making it look like charity and radical liberation.
In this sense, the complaints about ongoing systemic racism are true. Before the "Great Society" and the "War On Poverty", black America had been making enormous forward strides economically and culturally. After those programs took root, entire generations of blacks were lost to poverty, drugs, violent crime, and existential despair. The effect of Johnson's welfare state was not lost on his liberal allies, either. One of the most famous canaries in that coal mine was {{< newtab title="Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous report on 'The Negro Family' in 1965" url="https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/webid-moynihan" >}}.
In this sense, the complaints about ongoing systemic racism are true. Before the "Great Society" and the "War On Poverty", black America had been making enormous forward strides economically and culturally. After those programs took root, entire generations of blacks were lost to poverty, drugs, violent crime, and existential despair. The effect of Johnson's welfare state was not lost on his liberal allies, either. One of the most famous canaries in that coal mine was {{< abstab title="Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous report on 'The Negro Family' in 1965" url="https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/webid-moynihan" >}}.
The extent to which a man will go to hide his crimes from others, and his sins from himself, knows no bounds. And now, a new generation sensing intuitively that a crime has indeed been committed, but unable to understand what, or why, or how -- because my father's generation and my own generation has done such a good job of burying the evidence -- lashes out in fury and nihilism, destroying the very political principles it needs to achieve real justice, and leaving behind a trail of hideous crimes of it's own.

2
content/post/telos-is-arche.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/plato-and-aristotle.jpg
draft: false
---
From {{< newtab title="Love, Friendship, Beauty, and the Good: Plato, Aristotle, and the Later Tradition" url="https://www.amazon.com/Love-Friendship-Beauty-Good-Aristotle/dp/153264549X" >}} by Kevin Corrigan:
From {{< abstab title="Love, Friendship, Beauty, and the Good: Plato, Aristotle, and the Later Tradition" url="https://www.amazon.com/Love-Friendship-Beauty-Good-Aristotle/dp/153264549X" >}} by Kevin Corrigan:
> *"...Just as teaching and learning involve two different subjects, but constitute a single activity (energeia) from different perspectives, so also what is an action or an external motive force from one viewpoint is a manifestation of the deepest reality from another viewpoint. The same activity involves two distinct subjects but is nonetheless a single activity seen from two different points of view. What is divine from one aspect may be quite human from another! At the same time, the Aristotelian scale of nature embodies a hierarchy of different developmental forms, the lower forms always requiring the higher forms for their fuller actualization and explanation. All lower forms, therefore, require the energy of higher-order forms to give them their meaning. God is not therefore an explanation or cause remote from worms, butterflies, hopes, and thoughts, but their ultimate and yet proper meaning present to them from the beginning. Their telos really is their archē."*

6
content/post/testing-new-shortcodes.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ color: "blue"
draft: false
---
Today, I'm just testing out a few new Hugo shortcodes I added to the site. I've culled these from around the internet, and hacked together some of my own. You might find them useful, if you're doing static blogging yourself. You can find all the code on the repo for this site, **{{< newtab title="found here." url="https://gitea.gmgauthier.com/gmgauthier/personal-blog" >}}** As I do more and more blogging from the static site generator, this sort of thing will be more and more useful to me, at least.
Today, I'm just testing out a few new Hugo shortcodes I added to the site. I've culled these from around the internet, and hacked together some of my own. You might find them useful, if you're doing static blogging yourself. You can find all the code on the repo for this site, **{{< abstab title="found here." url="https://gitea.gmgauthier.com/gmgauthier/personal-blog" >}}** As I do more and more blogging from the static site generator, this sort of thing will be more and more useful to me, at least.
{{% ah %}} Linking {{% /ah %}}
Above this line, you can see that the text header now has a linked anchor. That's done with:
@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ Above this line, you can see that the text header now has a linked anchor. That'
Opening links in a new browser tab:
```{{</* newtab title="whatever" url="https://whatever.com" */>}}```
```{{</* abstab title="whatever" url="https://whatever.com" */>}}```
Here is a link to my legacy philosophy blog, that will open in a new tab. Out of the box, neither markdown, nor Hugo will do this: **{{< newtab title="Exiting The Cave" url="https://exitingthecave.com/" >}}**
Here is a link to my legacy philosophy blog, that will open in a new tab. Out of the box, neither markdown, nor Hugo will do this: **{{< abstab title="Exiting The Cave" url="https://whatever.com/" >}}**
{{% ah %}} Styling Blockquotes {{% /ah %}}

2
content/post/the-alienation-of-childbearing.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/full-surrogacy-now.jpg
draft: false
---
According to Sophie Lewis (in {{< newtab title="Full Surrogacy Now)" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Full-Surrogacy-Now-Feminism-Against/dp/1786637308/" >}}, if you are a woman, you are a vulnerable victim who at any moment, can be pressed into slave labor as a "gestational worker", subject to horrors as evil as cancer, and as brutal as an animal attack:
According to Sophie Lewis (in {{< abstab title="Full Surrogacy Now)" url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Full-Surrogacy-Now-Feminism-Against/dp/1786637308/" >}}, if you are a woman, you are a vulnerable victim who at any moment, can be pressed into slave labor as a "gestational worker", subject to horrors as evil as cancer, and as brutal as an animal attack:
> "...It is a wonder we let fetuses inside us. Unlike almost all other animals, hundreds of thousands of humans die because of their pregnancies every year, making a mockery of UN millennium goals to stop the carnage.......biophysically speaking, gestating is an unconscionably destructive business. The basic mechanics, according to evolutionary biologist Suzanne Sadedin, have evolved in our species in a manner that can only be described as a ghastly fluke. Scientists have discovered—by experimentally putting placental cells in mouse carcasses—that the active cells of pregnancy “rampage” (unless aggressively contained) through every tissue they touch. Kathy Acker was not citing these studies when she remarked that having cancer was like having a baby, but she was unconsciously channelling its findings......a human cannot rip away a placenta in the event of a change of heart—or, say, a sudden drought or outbreak of war—without risk of lethal hemorrhage. Our embryo hugely enlarges and paralyzes the wider arterial system supplying it, while at the same time elevating (hormonally) the blood pressure and sugar supply. A 2018 study found that post-natal PTSD affects at least three to four percent of birth-givers in the UK......It seems impossible that a society would let such grisly things happen on a regular basis to entities endowed with legal standing. Given the biology of hemochorial placentation, the fact that so many of us endowed with “viable” wombs are walking around in a state of physical implantability—no Pill, no IUD—ought by rights to be regarded as the most extraordinary thing.......even the most wrongheaded of textbooks written a century ago at least stated the problem to be solved in uncompromising terms: “Birth injuries are so common that Nature must intend for women to be used up in the process of reproduction, just as a salmon die after spawning.”..."

2
content/post/the-declaration-of-independence-part-4-our-sacred-honour.md
View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The final phrase of this paragraph is almost as famous as the self-evident truth
What the founding of America — and the Declaration of Independence, in particular — represent, is a debate as old as the Socratic dialogues. Do the rights of men derive from their place in nature and their relationship with God, or are they mere products of social agreement to be defended collectively as preferable to the Hobbesian alternative? Not all the founders agreed on this point. Though Jefferson and his natural rights idealists won the day, many in that second Continental Congress still did not accept “unseen absolutes” as the basis for any rational conception of men’s rights. Security is hard won by experience, and philosophical politics is prone to instability and (paradoxically) interpretation. Tradition, in other words, is a better custodian of men’s freedoms than philosophy, because philosophy is only as deep as the paper it’s written on but tradition is woven into the fiber of every heart.
This debate is exemplified in the exchange between John Adams and John Dickinson, {{< newtab title="dramatized well by HBO a few years back" url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzwtl5Z2cA" >}}. Dickinson was something of a celebrity in 1774. He was the author of a series of “Farmer’s Letters”, famously harshly criticizing parliament on the tax acts — and galvanizing the idea of “no taxation without representation”, in the minds of future generations of Americans. So, it is somewhat tragic and ironic, that it would be Dickinson who stood against the likes of Adams and Jefferson, in the debate around the Declaration of Independence. In the mini-series, Dickinson is a standin for the Burkean position. The first exchange depicted, in 1775, appears to be cobbled together from other public exchanges between the men, and extrapolations from the record of the Congress. But the second exchange, in which Dickinson begged rejection and Adams triumphantly proclaimed his vision of “*a republic of laws, not men*“, appears to be genuine. Today, we Americans all think we’d be on Adams’ side of the debate. However, given the relationship between the colonies and the British crown, and the people who populated the Continental Congress, I don’t think the choice is really all that clear cut.
This debate is exemplified in the exchange between John Adams and John Dickinson, {{< abstab title="dramatized well by HBO a few years back" url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzwtl5Z2cA" >}}. Dickinson was something of a celebrity in 1774. He was the author of a series of “Farmer’s Letters”, famously harshly criticizing parliament on the tax acts — and galvanizing the idea of “no taxation without representation”, in the minds of future generations of Americans. So, it is somewhat tragic and ironic, that it would be Dickinson who stood against the likes of Adams and Jefferson, in the debate around the Declaration of Independence. In the mini-series, Dickinson is a standin for the Burkean position. The first exchange depicted, in 1775, appears to be cobbled together from other public exchanges between the men, and extrapolations from the record of the Congress. But the second exchange, in which Dickinson begged rejection and Adams triumphantly proclaimed his vision of “*a republic of laws, not men*“, appears to be genuine. Today, we Americans all think we’d be on Adams’ side of the debate. However, given the relationship between the colonies and the British crown, and the people who populated the Continental Congress, I don’t think the choice is really all that clear cut.
Imagine it this way: you live in a small territory recently purchased and controlled by the United States. You moved there from your home state where you’d lived most of your life, in order to set up a US outpost, and make a new life for yourself. Gradually, the federal government starts taking arbitrary liberties with your territory. Revoking constitutionally guaranteed rights, on the basis that it’s not “really” the US. Ignoring your pleas for redress. Forcing you to quarter US troops in your home against your will, stationed there because of the strategic importance of the territory. Then, after a brief protest over these rights violations that gets particularly violent, the US cracks down HARD, and kills a bunch of people, including some of your own extended family members. You send a peace offer to the US, asking again for redress, this time, directly from the President. But he sends back to you a message saying that you’re all traitors, and that he’s going to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. What would your feeling be, then? What would you do next?

2
content/post/the-irrationalist.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/sam-harris.jpg
draft: false
---
Sam Harris, {{< newtab title="in his latest podcast," url="https://samharris.org/podcasts/174-life-mind/" >}} gives his listeners a special treat late in the episode. He hounds Richard Dawkins into submitting to a mindfulness meditation, and we get to spend nearly 15 minutes listening to Harris guide us and his guest through it, while waiting for Dawkins to finally ask Harris "what was the point of that?".
Sam Harris, {{< abstab title="in his latest podcast," url="https://samharris.org/podcasts/174-life-mind/" >}} gives his listeners a special treat late in the episode. He hounds Richard Dawkins into submitting to a mindfulness meditation, and we get to spend nearly 15 minutes listening to Harris guide us and his guest through it, while waiting for Dawkins to finally ask Harris "what was the point of that?".
What is remarkable about this whole segment, is the sales pitch that Harris has to offer Dawkins, in order to cow him into doing it. Through it, Harris essentially admits to a view of the universe that is fundamentally irrational. There are aspects of reality that are inaccessible to the rational mind, Harris insists. There are states of transcendence that require the surrender of the conscious self, and the quieting of the thinking mind, in order to to achieve them. Finally, he tells us, the most skeptical of us must imbibe hallucinogenic and psychotropic chemicals in order to disengage the critical faculties and "take the first step".

2
content/post/the-pope-of-platitudes.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ image: img/pope-of-platitudes.jpg
draft: false
---
Today, I had a little extra time, so I was going to write a response to the {{< newtab title="Op-Ed piece that Pope Francis recently published in the New York Times" url="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/pope-francis-covid.html" >}}. Seeing as how he's such a prominent figure in the culture today, I thought it might spice up the feed to delve into current events and do an analysis. However, after reading through this twaddle twice, I have to say I found it utterly vapid and unworthy of anything like a serious critique.
Today, I had a little extra time, so I was going to write a response to the {{< abstab title="Op-Ed piece that Pope Francis recently published in the New York Times" url="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/pope-francis-covid.html" >}}. Seeing as how he's such a prominent figure in the culture today, I thought it might spice up the feed to delve into current events and do an analysis. However, after reading through this twaddle twice, I have to say I found it utterly vapid and unworthy of anything like a serious critique.
Reading this piece was like listening to my 85 year old grandfather grouse about a random litany of personal and social problems ("you kids, these days!!" ), with no real point other than to vent frustration. There wasn't even an attempt at deploying any coherent theology in this missive. It was just one sentimental bromide after another.

2
content/post/the-regression-of-libertarianism.md
View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The Free State Project, when it was first proposed, was initially extremely inte
Flash forward from 2005 to 2020, and not much has changed for them. Though, it does seem that a more "conservative" strain of libertinism has opened up in the movement. "Free Keene" and the "Free State Project" are now estranged from each other. The "Free State Project" remains wedded to the old right-wing anarcho-capitalist separatism, while the "Free Keene" folks have taken up the mantle of radical leftist political self-expression (i.e. "trans rights" ), and they don't seem to be getting along with each other very well.
What they still have in common is that neither of them yet take the political process very seriously, and are determined to make a mockery of it. I used to resent New Hampshire locals who tended to lock Libertarians out of the process. Now, I sort of sympathize with them. {{< newtab title="What is presently going on in New Hampshire" url="https://newsflash.one/2020/09/12/transgender-satanist-anarchist-wins-republican-nomination-for-new-hampshire-county-sheriff/" >}} is a juvenile clown show, and I can just imagine how dismayed the normal work-a-day folks must be at having to deal with these lunatics.
What they still have in common is that neither of them yet take the political process very seriously, and are determined to make a mockery of it. I used to resent New Hampshire locals who tended to lock Libertarians out of the process. Now, I sort of sympathize with them. {{< abstab title="What is presently going on in New Hampshire" url="https://newsflash.one/2020/09/12/transgender-satanist-anarchist-wins-republican-nomination-for-new-hampshire-county-sheriff/" >}} is a juvenile clown show, and I can just imagine how dismayed the normal work-a-day folks must be at having to deal with these lunatics.
----

2
content/post/why-a-right-to-self-defense.md
View File

@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ At bottom, in other words, this is a metaphysical question. The reason why you h
The animal kingdom is full of examples of beasts that aggress against each other, and animals attempting to defend themselves against predators. But we wouldn't say that the Cocker Spaniel has a right to defend itself against the Rottweiler, or that the moose has a right to defend itself against the mountain lion. In these cases, the dog fight, and the ruminant fleeing from the big cat are mere matters of fact. We might express a certain distress at the violence of the situation, but this is an emotional response, not a moral one (though, sometimes it can provoke severe moral doubts, as was the case with Darwin and the Ichneumon eumerus). Even in the case of the great apes, we are prone toward pity and horror at the brutality with which troupe hierarchies are enforced, but would not ascribe moral value to the individuals involved in the conflicts, except as a function of our own projections.
What is it, exactly, that we are projecting? Some will tell you it is a veneer layer or secondary epiphenomenon of the psychological evolution of the human primate -- that the same thing we project on to 'lesser' primates, we project on to each other. But as {{< newtab title="Frans de Waal and others have discovered," url="https://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691169160/">}} it is much more significant than that. The scientists, of course, will stop short of metaphysical speculations. Though, {{< newtab title="Brett Weinstein has recently ventured to speculate" url="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bret-weinstein-heather-heying-sex-religion-evolution/id1375568988?i=1000535820515" >}} about a 'layer' of reality 'below' the reality of matter in motion, even he can't bring himself to call that by its proper name.
What is it, exactly, that we are projecting? Some will tell you it is a veneer layer or secondary epiphenomenon of the psychological evolution of the human primate -- that the same thing we project on to 'lesser' primates, we project on to each other. But as {{< abstab title="Frans de Waal and others have discovered," url="https://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691169160/">}} it is much more significant than that. The scientists, of course, will stop short of metaphysical speculations. Though, {{< newtab title="Brett Weinstein has recently ventured to speculate" url="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bret-weinstein-heather-heying-sex-religion-evolution/id1375568988?i=1000535820515" >}} about a 'layer' of reality 'below' the reality of matter in motion, even he can't bring himself to call that by its proper name.
What am I talking about? The spirit, of course. The spirit is something more than just Aristotle's animating force, or the kinetic 'energy' of the physicists. The 'layer' of reality below matter in motion is the *immaterial*. Something religions have recognized and celebrated for ten thousand years, and which we now struggle to ignore for the sake of our 'enlightenment'. Plato and Aristotle were right to point to *nous* as the essential (aka defining) feature of the human animal - the one thing that separated it from the rest of the animal kingdom. But what they seemed to miss by only millimeters, is the fact that *nous* is not the *cause* of our uniqueness. Rather, it is the *effect* of our uniqueness. Our capacity for high reason, for deep concern about the rightness and wrongness of our actions, and for the subtle recognition of shades of beauty in the world, are not what *constitute* our value as individual souls. The capacity to grasp the transcendents is an *expression* of that value. We are the only creatures on earth that can see the *significance of creation itself*. Where does that come from? How is it that the world has not just a discernable order, but a discoverable valence, and how is it that we can indeed perceive both?

8
layouts/shortcodes/abstab.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
<!-- Assumes that a complete absolute url is being passed from the post, and does nothing to modify it -->
<a href='{{ .Get "url" }}' target="_blank">
{{ with .Get "title" }}
{{.}}
{{else}}
{{ .Get "url" }}
{{end}}
</a>

8
layouts/shortcodes/reltab.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
<!-- assumes that the post contains a relative url, and that the local BaseURL should be pre-pended -->
<a href='{{ .Site.BaseURL }}{{ .Get "url" }}' target="_blank">
{{ with .Get "title" }}
{{.}}
{{else}}
{{ .Site.BaseURL }}{{ .Get "url" }}
{{end}}
</a>