by

On the Collapse of Biden

We here abjure most commentary on current affairs, inasmuch as current affairs are almost entirely froth upon the scum of history ‒ are, that is to say, mere noise ‒ and so, not worth notice, or mental work. Are, indeed, deleterious to mentation.

But, that’s no sort of policy here. I am like all us contributors here at liberty to write about whatever I want to write about.

And it seems to me that a threshold of world historical importance might have been passed last night with the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. It showed to everyone not a total fool that the entire Biden administration is a sham, and a knowing deception of the public. And this showed in turn that everyone who has been propping up that administration in the press is likewise engaged in a sham, and a more or less knowing deception.

Last night, on national television, the sham was revealed as such.

Continue reading →

by

The Absolution of Nothingness → the Absolution of Being

This post arises from my last, which was an argument for the existence of God from the impossibility of absolute nothingness. The hinge of the argument, its fulcrum, was in this paragraph:

To say [that, it being impossible that there should be no state of affairs whatever, so then some state of affairs must be necessary] is to say only, and exactly, that God is necessary. For, there are innumerable states of affairs in which this or that comes to pass contingently, but not necessarily. All those contingent passages and states of affairs are, by definition, not necessary. … But there is and must be a basic state of affairs that is necessary, and *not contingent;* in no other way could it be possible for other states of affairs to continge.

The idea is that, absolute nothingness being an incoherent concept, thus ontologically impossible, there must necessarily be some state of affairs; but that any contingent state of affairs, being not itself necessary, cannot be among the states of affairs that must necessarily be; so that, the mere fact that there must necessarily be some state of affairs entails that there must be a state of affairs that is in itself necessary.

Continue reading →

by

The Argument from the Impossibility of Nothing

Nothingness is not possible, for it would entail the absence of the possibility of nothingness; so that nothingness by definition rules out actual nothingness.

Possibilities are things, of some sort (tace re the character of that sort, for the nonce, vis-à-vis others of which we are more accustomed to entertain). The existence then of a possibility is the existence of a thing.

If then anything is possible, nothingness is not.

Something must then be, as a matter of mere logic, and before all considerations of this or that state of affairs. There must, i.e., be a state of affairs. A state of affairs is necessary.

Continue reading →

by

Christians Have Not Always Been Pale Poltroons

“If I were not a Christian, I would not continue to serve the King another hour . . . . I know not whence I should derive any sense of duty if not from God . . . . To my steadfast faith alone do I owe the power of resisting all manner of absurdities .  . .”

Otto von Bismarck (1871)*

In the Beatitudes, Christ numbers “peacemakers” among the blessed, telling us “they shall be called sons of God.”  Many modern Christians appear to believe that Christ used the word “peacemakers” to denote milksops who avoid conflict by living under a white flag.  These milksops keep the peace by surrendering everything without delay and without a fight. Indeed, we may suppose that more than a few of these craven Christians have the sophistic guile to tell themselves that their spineless surrenders are a higher, more spiritual, form of courage—that it requires, when you really think about it, a special sort of bravery to lick a boot. Continue reading →

by

The Roots of Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism is not, as is sometimes said, the main reason the U.S. Government shows such solicitude for Jews and Israel, but it is a reason without which that solicitude would be less solicitous than it actually is.  It is, therefore, a religious doctrine with secular consequences, and therefore a religious doctrine on which tolerant agnosticism is impermissible.  Does the state of Israel have a unique eschatological significance that demands extraordinary solicitude?  Or is it just one more passel of obstreperous Levantine grifters to whom a prudent nation will give a wide berth?

I’ve written this post to help you answer the first question.  I begin by reviewing Premillennial Dispensationalism, since this is the theological doctrine in which Christian Zionism flourishes most vigorously.  Although Premillennial Dispensationalism was born in protestant fundamentalism, I daresay some or all of this doctrine is now present in the worldview of most conservative Christians.  This is easily explained by the fact that Premillennial Dispensationalism is the only eschatology that can account for the decline of organized Christianity (Christ’s Church) without leading to despair.

Continue reading →

by

God as the most Intimate Being

Mystics emphasize the closeness of God, that He is within my soul, perhaps paradoxically closer to me than I am to myself. Natural theologians emphasize how different God is from any creature, and nothing distinguishes Him from us so drastically as the assertion that, unlike us, His qualities and attributes are not distinct from His very self. Let us consider how these truths relate. Let us try to appreciate how God is present to us in a way no creature conceivably could be.

Continue reading →
by

Philosophical Skeleton Keys: Freedom

A  thing that cannot act does not actually subsist. It might exist concretely, certes, but it cannot subsist. Hammers, e.g., exist, to be sure; but not actually, because of course they cannot act. So, your hammer is not really a thing, but rather only notionally, heuristically, and conventionally a thing. It has no integrity of its own. All its integrity qua tool derives from its usages by beings that do actually subsist: men, i.e. Your hammer exists, as a fit denotandum of your “hammer.” But only as such, and not as an actor – a substance – in its own right.

Excursus: the nominalist sport starts from this. It supposes that all denotations specify a mere heuristic. There is no way to entertain the nominalist proposal, than to presuppose it. From the presupposition of the nominalist  proposal, the conviction of its conclusion then follows.

I say this with all due respect to and affection for several hammers I have known and loved. Also chainsaws. And oars. Also knots.

Continue reading →

by

For They Mouth Empty, Boastful Words

“Full many a peevish, envious, slanderous Elf
Is in his works, Benevolence itself.
For all mankind, unknown, his bosom heaves;
He only injures those with whom he lives.”

Benjamin Franklin, letter to Polly Stevenson, March 25, 1763.

Everyone knows that flamboyant humanitarians are often miserly and cruel in their personal dealings.  These boasting benefactors love mankind abstractly, or at a great distance, or in proportion to its departure from the complexions and usages of their own immediate neighbors—their intimate relations are, however, notable for parsimony, acrimony and estrangements. Continue reading →

by

“Lions, and Tigers, and Bears, So What?”

Trail

Running a lazy eye over a display of artwork yesterday afternoon, one picture reminded me of Kristor’s recent post on the gedanken experiment that asked women if they would be more distressed to meet a man or a bear on a lonely forest path.  It appears that females of our species nowadays dread the masculine more than the ursine, at least when the setting is sylvan.  The painter, and one presumes subject, of Saturday Morning appears to share the prejudice of her sex, for as you can see, she and her bairn are blithely skipping through bear country, with no  dude or dad to be seen. Continue reading →