tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post7309866062535182974..comments2023-09-14T01:03:30.922+01:00Comments on The Thirsty Gargoyle: The Hand of God and the Will of AllahThe Thirsty Gargoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-29149772134065176902011-09-24T00:05:33.107+01:002011-09-24T00:05:33.107+01:00Continuation
Your criticism of the fourth argumen...Continuation<br /><br />Your criticism of the fourth argument is that it glosses over how you cannot have “freedom for” without first having “freedom from.” This put me in mind of Von Balthasar’s notion of gestalt and dialogical drama, which I think he got from Goethe. Each step in the development of an organism involves “choice”, or the assuming of one direction rather than another. Once a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-45945475576741808152011-09-24T00:04:45.732+01:002011-09-24T00:04:45.732+01:00Continuation
I am sorry you found Legutko’s piece ...Continuation<br />I am sorry you found Legutko’s piece slight and silly. I thought his definition of liberalism as thinness quite good. I wonder how you would disagree with it? It seems to me that the thinness of liberalism is on a par with the thinness of positivism. Neither can move beyond their starting point, and any movement is invariably a turning back on itself. You say the first argument Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-20847260809844326322011-09-24T00:03:12.076+01:002011-09-24T00:03:12.076+01:00When I say classical I mean roughly the period of ...When I say classical I mean roughly the period of the 5th and 4th centuries. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about Thucydides’ theoretical conception of the nature of polities to comment, but despite any differences between Plato and Aristotle I am sure both judged the value and purpose of any polity in the positive terms of its ability to embody and instill moral virtues in its members. Like Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-37305248898606183352011-09-23T01:33:44.727+01:002011-09-23T01:33:44.727+01:00An ahistorical view of Classical political theory
...<b>An ahistorical view of Classical political theory</b><br />I think it's deeply simplistic to say that there was 'a classical view' of how the State should be ordered, which stands in sharp contrast to 'the' modern view. Plato's view of the State changed over time, and differed from that of Aristotle, say, which differed in turn from that of Thucydides, which differed The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-34595955499415125492011-09-23T01:33:06.702+01:002011-09-23T01:33:06.702+01:00I'm intrigued by your reference to most of my ...I'm intrigued by your reference to most of my friends. Do you know them? Do you know anything about them? How many can you name? Because if you don't know them, I'm not sure you're in any position to claim anything about their beliefs.<br /><br />That aside, I think you might be missing my point.<br /><br />When you say that all I am offering is a purely formal space with no The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-59889862916496987402011-09-22T21:44:41.347+01:002011-09-22T21:44:41.347+01:00Here’s the second part:
Let me try this way. You ...Here’s the second part:<br /><br />Let me try this way. You ask, what is the state if not the sum total of its citizens? How very modern of you! Classically, that is the definition of a mob. And a mob is all form and no substance (which is not to say it isn’t real). The only difference between one mob and another mob is a formal one, such as its size: the sum total of its “citizens.” If you try Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-35610211058795519862011-09-22T21:43:27.751+01:002011-09-22T21:43:27.751+01:00I’m afraid that because of length I have to submit...I’m afraid that because of length I have to submit this in two parts. <br />This is the first part: <br /><br />Thank you very much for your indulgence. It is most helpful. Allow me to reciprocate somewhat.<br /><br />You were the one to use the word theocracy, not me, and I was not inferring that you set man up as the measure because you identified yourself as a democrat and not a theocrat.<br Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-57388813653094152792011-09-22T02:30:15.316+01:002011-09-22T02:30:15.316+01:00It is an imposition, I'm afraid, and it's ...It is an imposition, I'm afraid, and it's one that strays into the territory I'd labelled as being a discussion for another day. And, for what it's worth, one I'm none too pushed about answering, especially given that I'm very busy, very tired, and don't know who you are.<br /><br />Still...<br /><br />I don't think I have in any sense set up man as the measure of The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-27762399283942242562011-09-21T17:35:11.368+01:002011-09-21T17:35:11.368+01:00“I just don't believe in theocratic states; th...“I just don't believe in theocratic states; they have to act in accord with the will of the people, as I don't see how they can claim legitimacy otherwise”<br /><br />Exactly, you believe man (the will of the people) is the measure, not God. (1) If the will of the people is to exterminate Jews, is that legitimate then? And (2) if it is or isn’t, on what grounds is it or is it not?<br /><Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-16142953041462613822011-09-21T16:19:13.088+01:002011-09-21T16:19:13.088+01:00I don't think I do. I believe in a hierarchy o...I don't think I do. I believe in a hierarchy of truth, and I think the Catholicism is at the top of that. Something like Peter Kreeft's ranking of religions makes sense to me, and I think it tallies with what Paul says.<br /><br />I just don't believe in theocratic states; they have to act in accord with the will of the people, as I don't see how they can claim legitimacy The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-40904692354349292802011-09-21T15:42:19.690+01:002011-09-21T15:42:19.690+01:00Hmm. You may not have read Feuerbach, but one feel...Hmm. You may not have read Feuerbach, but one feels your thinking is inflected with his philosophical debasements. <br />If there are degrees of truth then there are degrees of falsehood, and the false can only be truly measured as such by that which is eminently true.<br />The trouble with your outlook is that you set man as the measure, not God; you, or rather the cultural and intellectual Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com