Find a purpose you will be better. Hitler did that and things did not get better. Stalin had a purpose and things did not get better. Pol Pot had a purpose and things did not get better. The author misses the mark in that the purpose MUST be guided by ethos. It can be borne from pathos but if it is not tempered by logos extreme disaster …
Find a purpose you will be better. Hitler did that and things did not get better. Stalin had a purpose and things did not get better. Pol Pot had a purpose and things did not get better. The author misses the mark in that the purpose MUST be guided by ethos. It can be borne from pathos but if it is not tempered by logos extreme disaster may follow.
For far too long, children have been taught to decide by emotion (thank you SEL) and adults have placed emotional appeal over facts and truth; objective truth has been supplanted by "my truth". Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been subtly forced down our throats for 2 decades through education and media and we are seeing the impact.
You're right, of course, that purpose must be moral and unselfish to be a contribution to humanity. But I think the author meant that, not the "purpose" of psychopaths and serial killers.
Pol Pot did what he did because he believed in equity and social justice. Purpose is not enough on its own and can be highly detrimental if not tempered.
Well, yes, of course. Psychopathic killers have purpose, and every one of them is the hero of his own story.
You're stretching the debate further than it needs, though. No one here seems to believe that any ol' purpose will do, but one we recognize as moral and perhaps noble.
1/4 of the population of Cambodia Pol Pot killed in the name of equity and social justice might just think (if they could do that anymore) a vigorous debate about equity and social justice should be had and pointing that out is not stretching the debate further than it needs to.
Just hearing Cackles the Clown (our VP) prattle on about "my truth" or "her truth" drives me over the edge. I wish I could give 1000 "likes" to your derision of it and recognition that "objective truth" is the only truth that matters.
It’s the result of all the postmodern theory being pushed by colleges. Instead of one truth, everyone has their own truth, determined by a scale of oppression. It’s all dumb and will hasten the decline of an American education.
I don’t think that 95% or so of people who have graduated from college in the past 70 years have been educated. In Chicago there’s a Coyne College. They specialize in the trades. People graduate from Barber and Beauty Colleges. They basically learn how to make a living in their areas. In the same way, people go to Wharton School to learn how to make a living in finance. What neither of the schools offer is how to live. That is, they don’t educate.
I agree with you, Daniel. But too many people on this board insist that one doesn't need college, just go to trade school and you'll make a terrific living without going into tuition debt, etc. etc. Learning to plumb an apartment complex is good and noble work, but kids who do that miss out on a humanities education, which is crucial to living in Western society.
70 years really should be 20. That used to be the domain of The Humanities. Hasn’t been for 25 years. Saying college has been worthless for 70 years, though, is being disingenuous at best.
The humanities, as taught in our schools, were already drifting in that direction back in the 1970s. I had my own run-in with a leftist professor in 1978. He gave me a zero on a term paper, without correcting it, because he disagreed with some of my opinions. Since that paper was 50% of the grade, I failed the course, and had to take it again (under a different professor).
I didn’t say they were worthless, because people who graduate college make more money than most of those that don’t. My suggestion is that they are all basically trade schools, teaching people how to make a living in their chosen profession. Attendees just won’t get an education there. If you want an education, you need to become autodidact, or, attend a truly Liberal Arts school in the old sense.
I went to an engineering school. I did take some humanities and social sciences. I confess I might not taken as many if they weren't required. But, instead of the typical English-composition class that the STEM students only take because they have to, I think they would be better served to have classes that unwind the thread of the sciences back to natural philosophy. After all, that's where the "natural sciences" came from. Math was also regarded as a branch of philosophy. All of this I learned on my own.
Back in 1983, we bought the new Encyclopedia Brittanica. Since we upgraded to the soft-bound version, they gave us the 54 volume set of the University of Chicago’s “Great Books of the Western World.” There was a 15 year suggested reading program. It took me 20 years to get through them. What was unique about the program was that you didn’t read the books one after another. You would trace one of what they called “Great Ideas” throughout the books to see how they were developed. It was easy to see how and why our Founders worked out the form of government they did since most of their education was based on the earlier works. For instance, reading John Locke where he wrote that all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The Founders changed property to the pursuit of happiness.
Robert Lifton called them “Thought Terminating Cliche’s”. It is a threat to our democracy. Reproductive rights is health care. Black Lives Matter. Trans Rights are Human Rights. No Person is Illegal. That is all that is taught in the humanities and it is quickly spreading to every discipline. As James Lindsay has pointed out, these are foundational to the left’s Operating System.
Yes. My youngest, who went to college in the middle part of the last decade told me that all of his friends knew how to get A's. Just regurgitate the idiotic cant they were being fed. At least then, however, none of the kids believed it. It was all just a big joke.
"......recognition that "objective truth" is the only truth that matters."
Hey Bruce. What of metaphorical truth? "On the seventh day God completed the work he had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken"
Geologically unlikely but metaphorically true. I view our inability to apply the right lens to subject matter as the deeper problem- faith issues through a faith lens, scientific issues through a scientific lens etc. If you go to a comedy show insisting that horses can't speak to bartenders you're not going to have much fun.
The seventh day point is not about truth at all rather it is about faith - what one believes in the absence of proof. I think that capacity is what has been, or is being, largely lost.
Well, it's something of an epistemic hair-splitting enterprise here Lynne. Christian Articles of Faith are decidedly viewed as truth by a significant chunk of the population. With no negative externalities in my opinion- at least of late.
Then there are secular Articles of Faith:
Thousands of unarmed black people are shot by police annually. The glaciers will all be melted by 2030. JK Rowling is the antichrist. Salman Rushdie should have known what he was messing with. These dubious propositions have significant externalities but are sincerely held by others.
I guess my point is that "objective truth" as Bruce defined it is not an easily boxed off definitive category.
Despite your high blown rhetoric, you seem to conflate belief and facts. Facts are what I was discussing. The white car slammed into the black car. The national debt exceeds $31.6 trillion. The Covid 19 vaccines are losing efficacy by the day. Facts are measurable, objective things. They are also, as John Adams observed, stubborn things.
An honest reading of my post would the nuances of truth and faith Bruce, not the conflation of belief and facts-neither of those words appearing in my post.
If you want to have a narrow black and white conversation, have it with somebody else. The gray space is what interests me.
"The "gray space" between truth and faith. Name one."
I did. Specifically. Above.
"But that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the preposterous notion of someone's truth rather than an objective truth."
And I challenged the knowability of all objective truth. Is a daily glass of red wine good for you? Have fun figuring that out. Even your examples above are poor. I know you claim the white car slammed into the black car. Not knowing you, your possible motivation or indeed ownership of the black car, that is all I know. The national debt number is factual today won't be a fact next month.
Personally I also despise the phrase "my truth". However we are having this discussion in the context of the purpose driven life article- this is not something that lends itself to quantifiable objectivity. But that doesn't make it not truth.
Your daily glass of wine analogy is interesting primarily because most medical studies are data based, not based on truly understanding function. Does the protection afforded by the reseveratrol overcome the deleterious effects of alcohol? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not our medical establishment although they pretend to portray their speculation as truth. On the car or debt issue, you quibble. But that's what makes this fun. We know the national debt number today. Next month's is speculation. But I think we probably agree more than disagree on this subject as we've drilled down. So thanks for the thoughtful responses.
"Christian Articles of Faith are decidedly viewed as truth by a significant chunk of the population. With no negative externalities in my opinion- at least of late." By "significant chunk" do you mean 3%-5% of the population? Only a small number blindly accept all tenets of the Christian Articles of Faith.
But the point of finding an objective truth requires an adherence to values which put freedom of speech as the method to find it. This is because thought is limited by speech and curtailing speech curtails thought. Once narrative truth supersedes objective truth you can’t hope to find any common truth. Every individual has their own personal truth and not affirming that negate their very existence.
It doesn’t seem to be. Without words to express an idea, we don’t seem to be able to form the thought behind the idea. This is why people can’t see colors until they learn the word for it.
This is also why ceding the linguistic domain to radical ideologues (either on the right or left) always results in the deaths of millions. The question: “What is a woman?” is not simply reductive but foundational in uniting people.
I would say without the use of words we cannot articulate an idea. I acknowledge that through the use of words we likely refine ideas but without an idea words are just gibberish. Use of words necessarily involves the thought process, which is examination of or evolution of an idea. I think people who are mute have ideas, even in the absence of writing. Prior to the evolution of speech out forebears had ideas. I certainly agree that ceding the linguistics domain to radical idealogues is a problem. Nor do I believe that "words are violence". I am not a scholar of linguistics but I find the subject fascinating.
I agree truth is not easily defined but my point was that to be Christian, or Muslim or Jewish and maybe other religions, you must first pass the faith hurdle. Do you believe or accept the idea that a Creator is possible? If you do then you go on to believe in a broad range of things that cannot be proven by tools at our disposal at this time and place.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Lynne- perhaps going down the rabbit hole on "What is Truth?" is not something we're likely to resolve before next Christmas. But truth and purpose are inextricably linked.
How does the 21st century rational individual process the exponentially increasing reams of information (some true, some warped, some even malicious) and forge a meaningful life? The answer is not obvious to me.
You are most welcome and the sentiment is reciprocated. I get hung up on your truth and purpose being inextricably linked. But for some, several of whom have so opined on CP and TFP, they cannot accept that there is a Creator so they cannot accept the "truth" of Christianity, Islam or Judaism for example. For the followers of those religions they cannot deny those "truths". So there is something of a dichotomy. I went through it myself as a young person but I had that epiphany, that aha moment when I was way over-thinking it as it is really vrry simple. Faith is not subject to proof. That is why it is called faith. But once you accept that you pretty much see it everywhere. I am pretty self-centered so for me I began to question the existence of evil. Which led to if there is evil, and I think there is, is there good and if so what is the embodiment of it? I was always what I think of as a cultural Christian so it just meant reverting to form for me. Also I am Baptist royalty, meaning every place my people went as soon as the house and barn were finished a church was built. Baptists believe you are virtuous because you are saved, not to be saved. While I am not a practicing Baptist, that is what I contribute my innate desire to be good to. Not that I always succeed.
Of course, the real issue there is that, although they advertise that every person's "truth" is equally true, they don't really believe that. The validity of your truth is directly proportional to your place on the political correctness scale.
Find a purpose you will be better. Hitler did that and things did not get better. Stalin had a purpose and things did not get better. Pol Pot had a purpose and things did not get better. The author misses the mark in that the purpose MUST be guided by ethos. It can be borne from pathos but if it is not tempered by logos extreme disaster may follow.
For far too long, children have been taught to decide by emotion (thank you SEL) and adults have placed emotional appeal over facts and truth; objective truth has been supplanted by "my truth". Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been subtly forced down our throats for 2 decades through education and media and we are seeing the impact.
You're right, of course, that purpose must be moral and unselfish to be a contribution to humanity. But I think the author meant that, not the "purpose" of psychopaths and serial killers.
Pol Pot did what he did because he believed in equity and social justice. Purpose is not enough on its own and can be highly detrimental if not tempered.
Well, yes, of course. Psychopathic killers have purpose, and every one of them is the hero of his own story.
You're stretching the debate further than it needs, though. No one here seems to believe that any ol' purpose will do, but one we recognize as moral and perhaps noble.
1/4 of the population of Cambodia Pol Pot killed in the name of equity and social justice might just think (if they could do that anymore) a vigorous debate about equity and social justice should be had and pointing that out is not stretching the debate further than it needs to.
Just hearing Cackles the Clown (our VP) prattle on about "my truth" or "her truth" drives me over the edge. I wish I could give 1000 "likes" to your derision of it and recognition that "objective truth" is the only truth that matters.
Cackles the Clown? You just made my day.
It’s the result of all the postmodern theory being pushed by colleges. Instead of one truth, everyone has their own truth, determined by a scale of oppression. It’s all dumb and will hasten the decline of an American education.
Hasten not only the decline of education, but the decline of America, think we just about there with or without God!
I don’t think that 95% or so of people who have graduated from college in the past 70 years have been educated. In Chicago there’s a Coyne College. They specialize in the trades. People graduate from Barber and Beauty Colleges. They basically learn how to make a living in their areas. In the same way, people go to Wharton School to learn how to make a living in finance. What neither of the schools offer is how to live. That is, they don’t educate.
I agree with you, Daniel. But too many people on this board insist that one doesn't need college, just go to trade school and you'll make a terrific living without going into tuition debt, etc. etc. Learning to plumb an apartment complex is good and noble work, but kids who do that miss out on a humanities education, which is crucial to living in Western society.
Nope they don’t teach life skills unfortunately!
70 years really should be 20. That used to be the domain of The Humanities. Hasn’t been for 25 years. Saying college has been worthless for 70 years, though, is being disingenuous at best.
The humanities, as taught in our schools, were already drifting in that direction back in the 1970s. I had my own run-in with a leftist professor in 1978. He gave me a zero on a term paper, without correcting it, because he disagreed with some of my opinions. Since that paper was 50% of the grade, I failed the course, and had to take it again (under a different professor).
I didn’t say they were worthless, because people who graduate college make more money than most of those that don’t. My suggestion is that they are all basically trade schools, teaching people how to make a living in their chosen profession. Attendees just won’t get an education there. If you want an education, you need to become autodidact, or, attend a truly Liberal Arts school in the old sense.
I went to an engineering school. I did take some humanities and social sciences. I confess I might not taken as many if they weren't required. But, instead of the typical English-composition class that the STEM students only take because they have to, I think they would be better served to have classes that unwind the thread of the sciences back to natural philosophy. After all, that's where the "natural sciences" came from. Math was also regarded as a branch of philosophy. All of this I learned on my own.
Back in 1983, we bought the new Encyclopedia Brittanica. Since we upgraded to the soft-bound version, they gave us the 54 volume set of the University of Chicago’s “Great Books of the Western World.” There was a 15 year suggested reading program. It took me 20 years to get through them. What was unique about the program was that you didn’t read the books one after another. You would trace one of what they called “Great Ideas” throughout the books to see how they were developed. It was easy to see how and why our Founders worked out the form of government they did since most of their education was based on the earlier works. For instance, reading John Locke where he wrote that all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The Founders changed property to the pursuit of happiness.
Students no longer are taught how to think, they are taught what to think. Sad.
Robert Lifton called them “Thought Terminating Cliche’s”. It is a threat to our democracy. Reproductive rights is health care. Black Lives Matter. Trans Rights are Human Rights. No Person is Illegal. That is all that is taught in the humanities and it is quickly spreading to every discipline. As James Lindsay has pointed out, these are foundational to the left’s Operating System.
And this sort of thing is one reason why enrollment in the humanities has fallen off drastically in recent years.
Yes. My youngest, who went to college in the middle part of the last decade told me that all of his friends knew how to get A's. Just regurgitate the idiotic cant they were being fed. At least then, however, none of the kids believed it. It was all just a big joke.
Now it's not so funny.
"......recognition that "objective truth" is the only truth that matters."
Hey Bruce. What of metaphorical truth? "On the seventh day God completed the work he had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken"
Geologically unlikely but metaphorically true. I view our inability to apply the right lens to subject matter as the deeper problem- faith issues through a faith lens, scientific issues through a scientific lens etc. If you go to a comedy show insisting that horses can't speak to bartenders you're not going to have much fun.
The seventh day point is not about truth at all rather it is about faith - what one believes in the absence of proof. I think that capacity is what has been, or is being, largely lost.
Well, it's something of an epistemic hair-splitting enterprise here Lynne. Christian Articles of Faith are decidedly viewed as truth by a significant chunk of the population. With no negative externalities in my opinion- at least of late.
Then there are secular Articles of Faith:
Thousands of unarmed black people are shot by police annually. The glaciers will all be melted by 2030. JK Rowling is the antichrist. Salman Rushdie should have known what he was messing with. These dubious propositions have significant externalities but are sincerely held by others.
I guess my point is that "objective truth" as Bruce defined it is not an easily boxed off definitive category.
Despite your high blown rhetoric, you seem to conflate belief and facts. Facts are what I was discussing. The white car slammed into the black car. The national debt exceeds $31.6 trillion. The Covid 19 vaccines are losing efficacy by the day. Facts are measurable, objective things. They are also, as John Adams observed, stubborn things.
An honest reading of my post would the nuances of truth and faith Bruce, not the conflation of belief and facts-neither of those words appearing in my post.
If you want to have a narrow black and white conversation, have it with somebody else. The gray space is what interests me.
The "gray space" between truth and faith
Name one.
But that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the preposterous notion of someone's truth rather than an objective truth.
"The "gray space" between truth and faith. Name one."
I did. Specifically. Above.
"But that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the preposterous notion of someone's truth rather than an objective truth."
And I challenged the knowability of all objective truth. Is a daily glass of red wine good for you? Have fun figuring that out. Even your examples above are poor. I know you claim the white car slammed into the black car. Not knowing you, your possible motivation or indeed ownership of the black car, that is all I know. The national debt number is factual today won't be a fact next month.
Personally I also despise the phrase "my truth". However we are having this discussion in the context of the purpose driven life article- this is not something that lends itself to quantifiable objectivity. But that doesn't make it not truth.
Your daily glass of wine analogy is interesting primarily because most medical studies are data based, not based on truly understanding function. Does the protection afforded by the reseveratrol overcome the deleterious effects of alcohol? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not our medical establishment although they pretend to portray their speculation as truth. On the car or debt issue, you quibble. But that's what makes this fun. We know the national debt number today. Next month's is speculation. But I think we probably agree more than disagree on this subject as we've drilled down. So thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Likewise, Bruce, thanks. Probably not the last time we'll go a few rounds on truth claims :-)
Catch you on the COVID thread
"Christian Articles of Faith are decidedly viewed as truth by a significant chunk of the population. With no negative externalities in my opinion- at least of late." By "significant chunk" do you mean 3%-5% of the population? Only a small number blindly accept all tenets of the Christian Articles of Faith.
But the point of finding an objective truth requires an adherence to values which put freedom of speech as the method to find it. This is because thought is limited by speech and curtailing speech curtails thought. Once narrative truth supersedes objective truth you can’t hope to find any common truth. Every individual has their own personal truth and not affirming that negate their very existence.
I like this but I think thought is the basis of speech. Or at least should be.
It doesn’t seem to be. Without words to express an idea, we don’t seem to be able to form the thought behind the idea. This is why people can’t see colors until they learn the word for it.
This is also why ceding the linguistic domain to radical ideologues (either on the right or left) always results in the deaths of millions. The question: “What is a woman?” is not simply reductive but foundational in uniting people.
I would say without the use of words we cannot articulate an idea. I acknowledge that through the use of words we likely refine ideas but without an idea words are just gibberish. Use of words necessarily involves the thought process, which is examination of or evolution of an idea. I think people who are mute have ideas, even in the absence of writing. Prior to the evolution of speech out forebears had ideas. I certainly agree that ceding the linguistics domain to radical idealogues is a problem. Nor do I believe that "words are violence". I am not a scholar of linguistics but I find the subject fascinating.
I agree truth is not easily defined but my point was that to be Christian, or Muslim or Jewish and maybe other religions, you must first pass the faith hurdle. Do you believe or accept the idea that a Creator is possible? If you do then you go on to believe in a broad range of things that cannot be proven by tools at our disposal at this time and place.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Lynne- perhaps going down the rabbit hole on "What is Truth?" is not something we're likely to resolve before next Christmas. But truth and purpose are inextricably linked.
How does the 21st century rational individual process the exponentially increasing reams of information (some true, some warped, some even malicious) and forge a meaningful life? The answer is not obvious to me.
You are most welcome and the sentiment is reciprocated. I get hung up on your truth and purpose being inextricably linked. But for some, several of whom have so opined on CP and TFP, they cannot accept that there is a Creator so they cannot accept the "truth" of Christianity, Islam or Judaism for example. For the followers of those religions they cannot deny those "truths". So there is something of a dichotomy. I went through it myself as a young person but I had that epiphany, that aha moment when I was way over-thinking it as it is really vrry simple. Faith is not subject to proof. That is why it is called faith. But once you accept that you pretty much see it everywhere. I am pretty self-centered so for me I began to question the existence of evil. Which led to if there is evil, and I think there is, is there good and if so what is the embodiment of it? I was always what I think of as a cultural Christian so it just meant reverting to form for me. Also I am Baptist royalty, meaning every place my people went as soon as the house and barn were finished a church was built. Baptists believe you are virtuous because you are saved, not to be saved. While I am not a practicing Baptist, that is what I contribute my innate desire to be good to. Not that I always succeed.
Agree. But cackles wasn't speaking in that context. She was advocating a fluid truth, which is the bedrock of her party's lunacy.
Of course, the real issue there is that, although they advertise that every person's "truth" is equally true, they don't really believe that. The validity of your truth is directly proportional to your place on the political correctness scale.