Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The internet brownshirts of the Demokrat Traitor Partei seem to be caught up on a certain New York Times Magazine article, Without a Doubt, by journalist Ron Suskind. Unfortunately Mr. Suskind is not a philosopher but rather a mere "journalist" which is really just a euphamism for Sophist or partisan hack. So we get to listen to someone who has never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rant for 11 pages. If you thought Hegel was insane, you'll think Suskind is insane squared. Suskind quotes atheist Bruce Bartlett:
"I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do."This so-called instinct is actually called a priori synthetic judgement. If Suskind was a philosopher instead of a journalist he would know this. But again, some people have never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Bartlett goes on to say:
"He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis.Suskind and Bartlett provide no evidence for the claim that faith overwhelms the need for analysis. The truth is analysis is impossible without faith in first principles.
The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Bartlett paused, then said, "But you can't run the world on faith."While it is correct that there can be no empirical evidence to prove first principles, it is absolutely wrong to say that you can't run the world on faith. All men have first principles, even Democrats, which are principles of faith. Suskind also needs to read Aristotle's Metaphysics.
"There are some people who expect even this to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not *. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle. But even about this there are ways to demonstrate that it is impossible by means of refutation, if only the one disputing it says something; if he says nothing, it is absurd to seek an argument to meet someone who has no argument, insofar as he has none, for such a person, insofar as he is such, is from that point on like a plant." -- Aristotle (Metaphysics, 1006a)
* "This sentence demands careful reflection." -- Martin Heidegger, The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking
Now back to Suskind's ignorant drivel:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism.A false dichotemy. If Immanuel Kant is the central figure of the Enlightenment (he is!), then according to the Enlightenment, empiricism is deeply flawed (see Hume's Treatise Of Human Nature).
He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."The statement above is quite accurate.
The president, listing priorities for his second term, placed near the top of his agenda the expansion of federal support for faith-based institutions. The president talked at length about giving the initiative the full measure of his devotion and said that questions about separation of church and state were not an issue [Ed...maybe because separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution?].Which is why Andrew McCarthy has the quote of the day: Behind the Times (Centuries we're talking, not years!).
Talk of the faith-based initiative, Gildenhorn said, makes him "a little uneasy." Many conservative evangelicals "feel they have a direct line from God," he said, and feel Bush is divinely chosen.
It boggles the mind how little the Times and its 9/10 allies have absorbed about the perilous realities of our 9/11 era. How irrationally circular, how suicidal, is their view of how we should confront these challenges. Or, more aptly, shrink from them.