PHILOSOPHICAL CRISIS IN THE WEST

 

It’s clear there is a spiritual crisis in Liberal Democracy.  What’s not so clear to most is that there is also a philosophical crisis.  For two reasons.  The value of truth has declined if not disappeared. Secondly, there is no understanding that the nature and place of truth must be discussed.

The spiritual crisis shows up in the dehumanization of mankind and the barbarism that still reigns in human affairs.  The philosophical crisis show up in that the discourse on fundamental meaning and purpose is absent from everyday human affairs.  Not only do most people not discuss politics, let alone know enough to discuss it meaningfully as a matter of daily human affairs; but the fundamental issues of philosophy that underlie those discussions and the issues and antagonisms involved are hardly ever discussed amidst the quotidian preoccupations of the masses.

It would seem that the progressives would want to engage in such discussion of the perennial issues and questions, given they seem to want to change the given state of affairs no matter what the cost and as fast as possible.  There is no will or allotted time to consider if change is so urgent and where warp speed transformation is going to take us.  Possibly out of the pot and into the fire.  But how would we know when adamant certainty prevails and the entertaining of fundamental questions is considered laughable or, at best, only for college philosophy class.  Sadly the spirit of such fundamental discourse doesn’t even often prevail in philosophy class.  I know.  I witnessed it for over 30 years of college teaching.  There is a fundamental rupture between thought, life and action in the world.

Philosophy is fascinating and engaging.  But the prevailing felt impatience that such experience is a waste of time and that there in fact is “not enough” time for thinking.  Philosophical thought does slow us down. It does take time.  But that may actually be one of its many benefits given that we are living in a kind of ‘warp speed’ world.  A rush to who knows where.

The idleness of philosophizing is no virtue today.  Though the right to “be idle” seems to be catching on as a ‘human right’ in some liberal strongholds.  But the pressure ‘to get on with it’, whatever “it” is governs our sense of time and how time should be “spent,” and what is worth our time.  Yet not having enough time to “do philosophy” is not really a matter of the quantity of time available.  Most of us waste inordinate amounts of time without realizing it.  What keeps us away from such such idleness, philosophical idleness and will undoubtedly keep the progressive liberals from embracing the “right to idleness” is because of what happens in idleness.  What happens?  One is confronted with one’s thoughts; or, even worse, one is confronted with the boredom bordering on the abyss of existential despair when the exigencies of achieving the next liberal goal is put to rest.

So for those who might want to take a break from the breakneck speed of everyday striving, achieving and just ‘keeping up,’ let’s go back and consider something we might want to think about.  It’s near the beginning of philosophy, about 2500 years ago that a man named Socrates began asking some important questions.  But apparently dangerous questions.  Because if you don’t know the story of Socrates his lifestyle of questioning and teaching the youth philosophically cost him his life.  He was accused, tried and put to death for “corrupting the youth,” and “not believing in the gods of the community.”

But let’s take the risk and consider just one of his questions.  It occurred in a wonderful little dialogue written by his student, Plato, called the “Euthyphro.”  It’s a short dialogue.  You might want to check it out.  But the big question that arises in the course of this dialogical drama is this:  Does God say something is good because it is in itself good; or, is something said to be good only because God says it’s good?

We might reflect for a moment and note that for those who don’t believe in God or a God, that such a question is meaningless.  But if I might be so bold, let’s translate the question into something relevant and meaningful in our world:  Is something good in medicine because it is good; or is it good only because Fauci says it’s good?

I’ll leave you to it to ponder this question if you choose; maybe go back and read the “Euthyphro,” and possibly even do a little research about what others have said regarding this question.  It is a founding and grounding question of the Western tradition, the tradition so vilified and under attack by the forces of “good” who presume to know what is good and bad and where we should go from here.

If I might give a little hint, it’s this.  If the question of the truth about good and bad, right and wrong is not a matter of God and God’s authority, especially for atheists obviously, then consider the nature, origin and legitimacy of authority itself.  Who rightfully has authority over truth, not to mention goodness?  Or, does authority itself guarantee and/or justify claims to truth?  Or, is truth itself not the fundamental determinant of what idea or which officials should have authority?

Have fun!!

Radical Relativism No Defense for Twitter’s Radical Left Censorship

The Left argues that the First Amendment is not “absolute.” So that means it is "relative." Thus, they would conclude, that the egregiously selective and targeted censorship at Twitter was justifiable. Relative to the perceptions and judgements of the Twitter radical Left, the Right's speech is unacceptable. On Twitter today we hear the shallow minds of the Left argue that one should not be able to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; and, one should not be permitted to incite violence against another’s person. Therefore, based on these two examples, all speech, they continue, is relative and all judgements about what is acceptable, permissible and censorable is relative, i.e., not determinable objectively and thus subjectively relative. But we might ask relative to or for whom or what? Why and to what particular relative points of view is speech only relatively or situationally or contextually permissable?

Moreover, with respect to the Left's presumably justificatory examples, more importantly we must point out that the reason yelling ‘fire’ and objecting to permitting inciting violence is not because speech is not absolute nor because such examples are instances of causing or preventing some unconscionable action but because such speech makes it virtually impossible to invoke the other side of speech, namely, the ability and opportunity to question, to object, to inquire, to dialogue and participate democratically in the discourse of knowledge and reality. The Left’s fallaciously superficial if not silly counterexamples are examples of speech acts that violate the nature of speech itself. That is, to question the factuality, truth, reality, goodness of any act of speech, or of any actual events, fulfills upon and honors the nature of speech whether declarative, interrogative, speculative or imaginative. Speech which violates the nature of speech and prevents the fulfillment of its and our human nature is that which must be impermissible. So in short that “speech” should be stopped which stops speech itself from enabling us to fulfill upon our nature, spirit and purposefulness as beings of speech. The 'shout fire/inciting violence' examples are impermissable because they excite or incite actions that stop speech where speech is or may well be required. Real speech has recourse to itself as dialogue that enables the truth and reality of claims to be considered, not imminently and exigently without further linguistic consideration thru impulsive action, but reflectively within the imperatives of the required time to think, speak, reflect, comment and question. Real speech allows and invites a response and provides the time and opportunity for the responder to do so.

The Leftists are radical relativists for whom the only thing that is absolute is their point of view, their proclamation of the real, the true and the good. Thus we on the right are dealing with a dogmatic, authoritarian and effectively violent cabal. In their relativistic defense of censorship, they violently violate speech itself and thereby the very practice that fulfills upon our nature as creatures of language and thought, a practice requiring in principle unbridled, infinite iterations of the word.