Saturday, January 25, 2014
To the preacher who says that Jesus meant Hell in a figurative way, please explain Jesus death. Did Christ die to save us from a figurative hell? Doesn't that make salvation figurative to? Did Christ endure real torment to bring men figurative salvation? Wasn’t Christ dying to save men from something bad? Isn't hell something bad? How is a figurative hell a bad place? Or is it only figuratively bad? If hell is the place where evil is punished, are you saying God punishes evil in a figurative way? Or is evil figurative, too? I mean, is evil figuratively wrong or literally wrong? If someone were to kill another person, are they literally wrong or only figuratively wrong? Will God deal with them literally or figuratively?
One more question: If hell is figurative, then what about heaven? Wow. That's a disappointment, figuratively speaking, of course.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
"In keeping with tradition for Inauguration Days that fall on a Sunday, the President will participate in a small private swearing-in ceremony on January 20." (Washington Post)Tradition has been to have a small closed inaugural swearing in when the inauguration day falls on a Sunday. This dates all the way back to James Monroe and was practiced by Eisenhower and Reagan. [link]
Monday, March 12, 2012
AYN AND ARISTOTLE: A IS A
"I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Rand
Dagny Taggart, John Galt, Fransisco d'Anconia, and Henry Rearden—characters created by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged live by this oath, an oath that drawn from Rand's own morality. "My personal life is a postscript to my novels; it consists of the sentence: 'And I mean it,'" Rand writes. The maxims upon which Rand built her life are expressed in her novels. Rand, also the author of such philosophical works as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness, formed a philosophy in which a man is his own highest standard. Believing only in what she knew and could quantify, Rand drew her morality from the fact of man's existence. Rand's reader hears her speak through the words of one of her protagonists John Galt. "Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality." Self and this present world is her focus. To her, existence is the primary truth, and the foundation of man's rationality, the core of his reason. Because man's existence is her first truth, Rand draws her moral compass around this origin. "Accept the fact that the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness—not pain or mindless self-indulgence—is the proof of your moral integrity. . . . and when you learn that pride is the sum of all virtues, you will learn to live like a man." In a system where a man's existence is his first truth, his own happiness becomes his first priority.
Rand's philosophy, logical and logically expressed, nods to Aristotle as her key inspiration. She titled the three parts of Atlas Shrugged in tribute to the ancient philosopher. Aristotle's Law of Identity "A is A" is recurrent in Atlas Shrugged. It is the idea that a thing is what it is, the idea that existence exists. Man is man. A train is a train. Air is air. This is truth. But is it enough?
Rand's presumes man's perception of himself is the only foundation he needs. He needs no higher truth. Man's perception of his own existence validates not only his existence but also his perception. For Rand, existence is tied to perception, or thinking. Thus, man's only absolute is to think. Using his ability to think, man is able to perceive and validate the existence around him, able to say that "A is A," where "A" is anything man can perceive.
But, according to this, a thing is not unless it is perceived. That is to say, it exists not until it is perceived to exist. Air is not air until it is perceived to be so. Rand has yoked existence with perception. Yet, the truth is that air is air whether one perceives it or not. A is A whether one perceives it or not; and denying the fact, or trying to make A to be non-A, is not merely an attack on oneself, as Rand says. It is an attack on truth.
"A is A" is not incorrect, it is simply incomplete. It is fact without reason. A is A because of a higher Law: God is God. The issue is perspective. Rand pointed her perspective outward, just as Aristotle did. Their error was that they never looked upward. They ignored the existence of a higher being. Rand did not care to consider anything beyond her temporal view. She writes of her position on morality and virtue, "Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other." But, her denial that God is God does not change the fact. Her denial does not erase God's existence. God was, is, and will be God, and because of that, A is still A. "A is A" is the fact. "God is God" is the reason. Rand and Aristotle only wanted to know that "A is A" in order to exist, but they should have known the fact that God is God is the only reason to do so.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Are we better today than we were ten years ago? Ten years after September 11th, 2001, are Americans better today? The question is not "Are we better off now than before?" To be better off is a matter of condition; to be better than is a matter of quality. Are we as Americans better today than we were ten years ago?
September 11th permanently altered American life. We can point out the changes. A new Homeland Security Department. Enhanced security measures at airports. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Debate over border security. The list goes on. American life has altered. We have worked to make American living conditions better. But, are we better? Not in condition, but in quality?
Half a century ago, the nation witnessed what has come to be called the Greatest Generation. It was a generation that took tragedy and responded with sacrifice. It was a generation that saved the world. It was a generation that taught it's children not to ask what America could do for them, but what they could do for America. It was a generation of individual Americans who made themselves better through the challenges they encountered. So, what about us? Are we better?
It's a question for the individual. It's not to be answered in the third person, but rather in first person. Not "look what he or she is doing." But, "here is what I am doing." Yes, the question may be better stated, "Am I a better than I was ten years ago?"
September 11th ignited our nation's inner strength as Americans bent their knees. May we always retain the unity and power of a nation under God. September 11th sparked a ferver of volunteerism in Americans. Countless Americans gave blood, signed up for the military, and joined the Peace Corp. May we never cease to live by the maxim, "It is better to give than to receive." September 11th showed a nation its soul through images of firemen and policemen and everyday citizens who redefined "American Hero." May we always remember the legacy of sacrifice.
And me... "Am I better today?"
Thursday, July 30, 2009
For once, I think I agree with President Obama.
No, not about the Cambridge Police Dept. acting "stupidly." As Obama already conceded last week, he could have "calibrated" that statement differently. Personally, I believe he could have calibrated his concession differently. Maybe, Something more like: "I could have just ummm... not said anything until more information became available." I understand though, and what Obama said might have been fine with just a little recalibrating. Much of what presidents say is blown out of proportion. Obama did state later through one of his aides that "it was stupid to use the word stupid."
Apart from that, I agree with what President Obama had to say in summarizing the whole situation. He put it in perspective. Professor Gates and Officer Crowley are two "decent men," as Obama put it. Just as Crowley's record virtually exempts him from racial accusations, so Professor Gates achievements prove that he is no "race-hound." Professor Gates has dedicated his career and his life to promoting a greater understanding of African-American culture, especially its literary culture. At face value, Gates and Crowley are two men who have earned the respect of their community.
Both men have maligned as different people have voiced their opinions on what happened. That is not what I am here to do. At this point, the whole story is still very foggy, and no one but Crowley and Gates know what truly happened. I'm going to say what President Obama, and everyone else in the country, should have said had should still be saying:
I don't know enough of the details yet, and I will refrain from speculating.
What many fail to understand is something else that Obama said.
"Be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past...African-Americans are sensitive to these issues."
That is where I agree with our President. African-Americans bear scars from past mistreatment, mistreatment that too often involved law enforcement. These scars take time to heal. Put a black man in any situation with an officer, and that man's guard will go up along with his suspicion. It is human nature to react according to past experiences. I'm not saying that it is right. I'm saying it's natural and should be anticipated. Professor Gates should have easily cooperated with the police. However, why he did not do so should be understandable.
As the president said, "Even when you’ve got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African-American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding."
When this whole situation is sorted out (and I hope it will be), the conclusion should not be judgment, but understanding. Understanding will bring unity. Unity will remove racial divides and heal racial scars. Unity is American.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Honestly. I cannot believe this. After almost 30 years in national politics, is this the way he thinks a campaign is won? If you have seen McCain's recent campaign ads, you know what I am talking about. I used to tell people that beating Obama would be easy for McCain. All he had to do was point to his own towering record and indicate Obama's skimpy one. Obama is talk because that is most of what he has done. McCain has walked politics since 1982.
McCain should have known better. What is the one thing that Americans hate most about politics? Mudslinging. What has been the style of the latest McCain ads? Mudslinging--with very pathetic aim. The ads have backfired and now he is the only one looking dirty.
Take the "Celebrity" ad:
First off, does this ad leave you thinking Obama = higher taxes and more foreign oil? No. The exaggeration left in your mind is: Obama = Celebrity = Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Is Obama akin to Britney or Paris? No, no sensible person would argue that. Is Obama a celebrity? Yes, no sensible person should argue that. But, is that all that all that Obama is? No, no sensible person could argue that. My question for McCain is: Why pay for an ad that overstates the obvious? Of course, Obama is a celebrity, and, of course, he is not a Paris or Britney. My second question for McCain is: Do you honestly think that you can defeat a popular opponent by telling everyone that he is popular? McCain shot himself in the foot. And the really embarassing part? Mother Hilton had donated to the McCain campaign, and she is not amused.
Now for the other ad: "The One"
Evidently, this ad was an effort to reach out to the young generation. According to McCain's spokesperson, "campaigns can be mind-numbingly boring and brutal without a little bit of humor." In other words, the McCain campaign paid for television time so they could tell a joke. There is a fine line between being funny and poking fun. Americans know that this was poking fun, and "we are not amused."
Here's my two cents:
An ad is a costly opportunity for a candidate to get his word out. The last thing he should do is use it to talk about the other guy. McCain needs to get back to promoting McCain, McCain's plans, and McCain's accomplishments. I want to see the real McCain, honestly.