"The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies,and supernatural events, which, in all ages,
have either been detected by contrary evidence,
or which detect themselves by their absurdity,
prove sufficiently the strong propensity
of mankind to the extraordinary and marvelous,
and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion
against all relations of this kind."
p.s. How come no one ever comments on the philosophy quotes? Can I assume they at least make you take a moment to ponder?
5 comments:
Dr John,
As someone who tends to lean to conservative tendencies, by your own definition "an honest if debatable intellectual perspective" I feel I have nothing to say - these are obviously over my head by your observations =)
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I think you read something into that definition that was not intended. I think that all intellectual perspectives are debatable, in that they all deserve a place in any debate; understanding that they are subject, in that debate, to some questioning. If you enter the debate and accept that your views (left, right, or center) may be challenged, and possibly have to be revised, great-- you're contributing to solving the problem at hand. If one enters the debate with a hard-line position (left, right, or center) and the attitude that your counterpart is your enemy or that her ideas are by definition wrong or even evil because she refuses to adhere to your ideology, well, then you're part of the problem (this to me applies to Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes, to pick two different ends of the political spectrum). Hopefully that clarifies my position. But, in any case, I haven't been choosing the philosophical quotes (with maybe one exception) to advance any particular political perspective. Does it seem like I am?
Dr. John
Dr John,
Let me clarify that I don't think I read anything other than what you wrote. Are all political philosophies up for debate? - you bet ya. I think that when you have political dialogues you sure need all views (right, middle or left) There are many times I have thought of what you have said about politics and thought they were very well thought out comments with the backing you state, but in the phrase "an honest if debatable intellectual perspective" (in regards to conservative as applied by Bush Jr), I think you really do admit you don't think highly of conservatives! Since I consider myself one I feel you don't think highly of my thoughts, comments, perspectives or whatever the arguments may be.
I do admit that the philosophies you quote (other than the one you point out) are not specifically liberal but they do tend to lean that way. For instance, this quote by Hume, as I interpret it, it basically says that there are no miracles.. only greatness that man produces by himself. Liberals (as I see it) believe that man should have control over all aspects of life to ensure life liberty and happiness for all. This may sound good, but what about the uncontrollable (the actual earth - to be specific with its weather, geological happenings, nature at its base). Man has greatness in him. He can show greatness in his deeds, but why should there be a few (in government) to tell us what we need to do to be this great? Why can't situations be established to allow man to show his greatness without the need to be regulated, charged, or even to be pushed into controlled situations?
Obviously as curators of this planet we need to have regard for what is going on around us. But whatever happened to evolution? Do we think we are gods that must stop time NOW because this (world) is what we know and want to have NOW? Isn't the whole idea of life as we know it a constant change? How can you stop (or have control of) the miracle of nature (life) from happening?
Ok I will get off my soapbox now and let it ride.
Good for you Liz, You just stay right up there on your soap box. I love to hear the two of you take on. Mom
Sorry Lil Sis, but I still think you misunderstood my point about conservatism. I really do think of conservatism as a valid intellectual (or political) perspective with much to contribute to the debate (and I hope you'll continue to express your viewpoints here and elsewhere). I do not think the version of "conservatism" that George Bush represents is a legitimate intellectual position, regardless of the fact that he labels it conservatism. These terms are all very fluid, and evolve, but by his definition (or someone like Limbaugh's), that's not possible. For example, his answer to virtually every problem over the past eight years was to cut taxes, and this to him was "conservatism." Never mind that most conservatives generally believe in fiscal responsibility; that took a back seat to cutting taxes, regardless of the effect. That kind of stubbornness does not represent a valid intellectual perspective, it represents pigheadedness (and you can make similar charges about the other side too, this is not entirely one-sided). What I objected to about Bush is that, in creating his version of "conservatism," he drew a line in the sand and created an environment where his supporters often expressed outright disgust and hatred for opponents of his policies AND led those opponents to often express disgust and hatred for his supporters. That is not healthy to political debate, and I still think he deserves to be ashamed for allowing that to occur. Let me put it another way by quoting the late journalist Lars Erik Nelson: "The enemy isn't conservatism; the enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bullsh--." In a sense, the Hume quote says the same thing: that people have been fooled too often to take things on face-value-- it's healthier to be a little skeptical of anything that sounds too good to be true, since it probably is.
Dr. John
Post a Comment