new pope

[Belinda]

Alexis pronounced darkly:

However, the metaphysics are as valid as they ever were if the principles are successfully extracted and understood.

Okay if a stratified society is what you want.
A society rigidly stratified by relative power will be bad for human rights. Your star is in the ascendant in the USA.

You are talking of something I am not talking about. I am referring to hierarchies of knowledge and of value.

You are talking of the Medieval division of society into 3 rigid classes.

I am talking about society needlessly stratified into social classes.

Hierarchies of knowledge and evaluative ability include stratification which is bad for those at the bottom end. The best of knowledge should be universally available .

The best of judgemental ability too should be universally available .

Do you understand that your political stance is right wing?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Complete, undogmatic agnosticism, not less than an uncritical sentimentality, result in mental and moral confusion, while, in proportion as we are inspired by certain conviction, does life become richer, art finer, and philosophy more profound.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hierarchies of knowledge and evaluative ability include stratification which is bad for those at the bottom end. The best of knowledge should be universally available .

The best of judgemental ability too should be universally available .

Do you understand that your political stance is right wing?

Those Left-Right divisions are not helpful in a process of arriving at fundamentals we can give our assent to.

Hierarchies of knowledge are, in my view necessary, inevitable, and good. I say this because I accept authority. I value authority. And I seek out authority to learn about those upper echelons of knowledge. Thus I make distinctions and assign value to legitimate authority? Or do I attack Authority out of ignorance and resentment? (The idiot’s option).

There is nothing at all wrong with stratification either. This is very simple stuff, Belinda. It surprises me that you stumble in this area.

Those “at the bottom end” must grasp what the “upper end” is. And when they do a choice presents itself to them: Do I willfully stay here, or do I choose to give my assent to that Authority that will help me ascend.

The best of judgmental ability too should be universally available.

And it is not. So your position is that of a misguided idealism.

Ability is distributed varyingly. In all fields.

My stance (in this area) is one of basic common sense. So it is not “political”. Your view is very definitely political, and it seems to reflect an unrealistic radicalism which runs counter to said common sense.

Here is a good example of a hierarchy of knowledge and of authority.

[henry quirk]

The desire, the willingness, to submit oneself to molding power of a higher (spiritual) order.

To value what is spiritual and non-material over what is strictly material.

To value one’s primary relationship as a sacred union (marriage).

To regard other human beings as especially valuable because of their connection to the creator, because of their capabilities.

The capacity, also due to a tempered will, to voluntarily place certain values over and above one’s own desires, longings and wants.

To accept the (possible? probable?) existence of a larger Plan for ourselves, this life, this world, even if and when it seems improbable, unlikely, unrealizable.

To hold to certain paradigms of ideas (of an idealistic sort) in spite of other moods or temperaments of a negative sort.

Would you take these principles as decidedly Catholic, or as older, deeper principles that were necessarily codified by Catholics?

You perhaps are curious about the specifics of Catholic social and economic ethics?

Please...

[henry quirk]

I’ll take the Bagel, the Apple and the Martini.

I have been reading this over the last few days. It might interest you.

Good choices: healthy and, mebbe, moderate.

Me, I take 2 beers and one slice of gutbuster (or 1 beer and two slices [hell, they're my treats: I'll have 3 beers and the whole pie]).

Captured and saved to my pad's file...thanks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Would you take these principles as decidedly Catholic, or as older, deeper principles that were necessarily codified by Catholics?

My view is that in the area of justice, social justice, fair ethics, and a universal vision, that Hebrew ethics (which combined with Greek rational philosophy) have the defining advantage. I have not come across a religion so far that defined those values so thoroughly.

[Dubious]

And here you and I can agree that our basic predicates differ.

...and here I'll let it stand. I have no objection to your views. According to the logic you apply, they make sense. Mine is counter to yours, but I think equally logical viewed from a different perspective, though I'm certain you will not agree. The Church Fathers themselves were impeccable logicians in creating the complex and imposing structures of Christianity. Their brilliance in having accomplished that is not to be disputed.

However, metaphysics to me does not require a brand-new type of clergy trained in a seminary espousing metaphysical principles as though they were an unbreakable truth. To me, there is no such edge to metaphysics. In addition it's not wrong to think that metaphysics, which includes religion, comprise all our improvised ways of escape from nature since it offers nothing which metaphysics itself endorses.

In any case, beliefs of whatever ilk are merely temporary realms of accepted values good only for as long as they last...since no one and nothing lasts forever.

[Belinda]

Hierarchies of knowledge and evaluative ability include stratification which is bad for those at the bottom end. The best of knowledge should be universally available .

The best of judgemental ability too should be universally available .

Do you understand that your political stance is right wing?

Those Left-Right divisions are not helpful in a process of arriving at fundamentals we can give our assent to.

Hierarchies of knowledge are, in my view necessary, inevitable, and good. I say this because I accept authority. I value authority. And I seek out authority to learn about those upper echelons of knowledge. Thus I make distinctions and assign value to legitimate authority? Or do I attack Authority out of ignorance and resentment? (The idiot’s option).

There is nothing at all wrong with stratification either. This is very simple stuff, Belinda. It surprises me that you stumble in this area.

Those “at the bottom end” must grasp what the “upper end” is. And when they do a choice presents itself to them: Do I willfully stay here, or do I choose to give my assent to that Authority that will help me ascend.

The best of judgmental ability too should be universally available.

And it is not. So your position is that of a misguided idealism.

Ability is distributed varyingly. In all fields.
I agree

My stance (in this area) is one of basic common sense. So it is not “political”. Your view is very definitely political, and it seems to reflect an unrealistic radicalism which runs counter to said common sense.

Here is a good example of a hierarchy of knowledge and of authority.

I agree that "Ability is distributed variably". But it does not follow that power should be distributed variably according to who one is . Reason is blind and does not recognise that some people have less right to reason than others . Reason is a strong component of Jesus' teaching. Authority is also part of Judaism but it's that authority of reason not of authority ; the Ten Commandments are reason codified .

Indeed my views are political--I am socialist. You are partial to Authority , I am partial to Jesus of the Gospels because he talks reason not because he is endorsed by the authority of the Church. You are not only right wing---in effect you are feudal because your version of God supports the authority of the upper classes even when those upper classes are unjust and unreasonable.

Alexis wrote:

Those “at the bottom end” must grasp what the “upper end” is. And when they do a choice presents itself to them: Do I willfully stay here, or do I choose to give my assent to that Authority that will help me ascend.

Neither! The society should ensure that education is liberal not authoritarian. The Socratic method may be used to lead the ignorant towards upper- end ideas.

An authoritarian education will indoctrinate not educate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are not only right wing---in effect you are feudal because your version of God supports the authority of the upper classes even when those upper classes are unjust and unreasonable.

This was your initial projection. But what I spoke about did not touch on the injustices of upper echelons. I suggest removing the “lens” through which you read my posts and read them again without prejudice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...and here I'll let it stand. I have no objection to your views. According to the logic you apply, they make sense. Mine is counter to yours, but I think equally logical viewed from a different perspective, though I'm certain you will not agree.

I would not say they are counter in a complete sense, but yes, the views I hold to will naturally tend to support conventional understanding and also (as in this instance) a created institution like the Church.

I am, as is obvious, a man geared toward conservative and conserving ideas. I tend to be suspicious of radical innovation. The “assault on hierarchies” (a strong movement that became powerful in the Sixties — my parent’s generation) had two edges, and this duality is fascinating but also (as I say) arouses suspicion.

Since the Catholic Church had been the topic here, it is inevitable that the radicalism of the Vatican ll reformations is critiqued. I have presented (in fact only alluded to) the effects of radicalism. But I am circumspect enough to know that even if patterns are largely destructive, that there may well be good results in some ways and areas.

Finally, the rediscovery of a metaphysics, the choice to re-empower such an order of ideas, is linked to the need to establish anchors within Existence. And that activity involves, naturally, grasping after solidities. We both recognize, I think, that this too can have negative aspects.

In addition it's not wrong to think that metaphysics, which includes religion, comprise all our improvised ways of escape from nature since it [Nature] offers nothing which metaphysics itself endorses.

This is a very relevant idea: that the religious impulse is in so many ways opposed to Nature in the sense of a Determining Power, a real tyrant. To be liberated, to rise above, to gain some position over it all …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Recently, this department of the forum has been dominated by discussion of Determinism. Determinism is in its essence (unless I am missing something) a basically atheistic position. The logics of determinism are its pillars and foundation structures in atheism’s declarations. The entire idea of a “God” or of Divine Being to which Man can beckon is described as utterly false.

But this thought occurs to me: If we do grant that all nature and manifest reality is deterministic, and that we are subsumed in that (captive, like “rolling rocks” and “water molecules”) then the notion of Divine Power and something metaphysical and supernatural to which man can beckon becomes intensely more relevant.

Those without access or recourse to a power and potency outside of the realness and limitations of conceived determinism are in a trap from which there is no escape.

And if all this is so, and yet counter to the atheist’s position Divinity is accessible, then that much more emphasis is placed in cultivating that relationship.

Not as escape or as excuse from “facing the facts” (of determinism’s restraints and limitations) but as a fulcrum for genuine, responsible and conscious activity in life.

[Belinda]

You are not only right wing---in effect you are feudal because your version of God supports the authority of the upper classes even when those upper classes are unjust and unreasonable.

This was your initial projection. But what I spoke about did not touch on the injustices of upper echelons. I suggest removing the “lens” through which you read my posts and read them again without prejudice.

Of course you did not mention "injustices of the upper echelons"! You would not mention that fact would you!

You had better mention the injustices of the "upper echelons", because human nature is such that if the rich and powerful are not curbed their tendency will be to conserve their wealth and power to the detriment of the poorer less powerful people.

Indeed the rich and powerful legitimate their authority by appeals to religion, even when in so doing they distort faith to rationalise their own interests.

[Belinda]

Recently, this department of the forum has been dominated by discussion of Determinism. Determinism is in its essence (unless I am missing something) a basically atheistic position. The logics of determinism are its pillars and foundation structures in atheism’s declarations. The entire idea of a “God” or of Divine Being to which Man can beckon is described as utterly false.

But this thought occurs to me: If we do grant that all nature and manifest reality is deterministic, and that we are subsumed in that (captive, like “rolling rocks” and “water molecules”) then the notion of Divine Power and something metaphysical and supernatural to which man can beckon becomes intensely more relevant.

Those without access or recourse to a power and potency outside of the realness and limitations of conceived determinism are in a trap from which there is no escape.

And if all this is so, and yet counter to the atheist’s position Divinity is accessible, then that much more emphasis is placed in cultivating that relationship.

Not as escape or as excuse from “facing the facts” (of determinism’s restraints and limitations) but as a fulcrum for genuine, responsible and conscious activity in life.

Determinism fits theism. You should look up what ' word of God' and 'Logos' mean. God is the name for Cosmic order . You, Alexis, necessarily exist. Every event necessarily happened. I don't know where you live but I expect your future life is comparatively free and you can choose how you want it to happen. You can be an agent for change if you like. You could not be an agent for change if your future were decided only by your history.

In fact your past history determined you would live to human adulthood and acquire the power to think as an independent and reasonable individual.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course you did not mention "injustices of the upper echelons"! You would not mention that fact would you!

You are flipping out but without a sound reason. My interest in or admiration for established Catholic social philosophy is first concern with “general grounding”. Social justice and well-being, within Catholic social doctrine, are definitely relevant. But not the topic of my recent posts.

You had better mention the injustices of the "upper echelons", because human nature is such that if the rich and powerful are not curbed their tendency will be to conserve their wealth and power to the detriment of the poorer less powerful people.

I have no reason to disagree. But again, my previous assertions had to do with hierarchies of knowledge and a critique of the influence of ‘mass man’ (which Ortega y Gasset does not localize in a specific class, though degeneracy can flow from top to bottom by bad example).

Indeed the rich and powerful legitimate their authority by appeals to religion, even when in so doing they distort faith to rationalize their own interests.

As well [men, elites, and masses] make appeals for social justice, fairness, brotherhood, respect of the individual, and many other qualities.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Determinism fits theism.

Not of the sort that defines humans as “rolling rocks” and “water molecules moving through established contours”.

That so-called “hard determinism” definitely seems to portray itself as actively atheistic. But if you see it differently be kind enough to explain and correct me.

The notion of a “deity”, and certainly one that links with men personally, is not a determined force, but rather one that inspires man to act against determined patterns. Man may be relatively unfree but if he can access a fulcrum outside of determined reality, well you do the math.

In any case this is to what this long conversation has brought me. If there is “a cubic centimeter of chance” to act differently in this world (as a conscious, aware agent) it is that which interests me.