So here's what I know about lent:
You give up something during Easter season in order to realize something deeper about your life.
I'm embarrassed that after I celebrated it this year that I am not able to articulate it any better than that, so I sit her blogging on my second day of using facebook again not sure if I celebrated lent at all.
What's equally as disturbing is that I'm not sure that I should've kept Lent. I'm not a Catholic. When I told a Catholic friend about me kept Lent, he knowing that I am not a Catholic, said, "You're not a Catholic." And he seemed offended. But for what's it's worth, the following was my justification for keeping it, at least in my own head.
Even though I am not a Catholic, I feel that I am a part of the history of Christ that has been unfolding in the history of the church of which Catholicism and Protestantism are a part. I look at lent the same way I look at fasting. Fasting to me seems to be a really good thing because denying ourselves seems to be a really good thing. It focuses our attention. It has the ability to show us something about ourselves we might not have seen because of the habitual lifestyles we lead. A facebookless Matt is a different Matt than a facebooking Matt. And giving up facebook is a way for Matt to figure out if he really needs facebook to be a better Matt. Discipline in general seems to have more positives than negatives. A disciplined life is a happy life in my estimation, and it takes practice and discipline in order to be disciplined. Fasting is also counter-intuitive, but then so is discipline, so I think maybe happiness is counter-intuitive. But this makes sense. Think about what we would become if all we did was pursue our immediate impulses. I think our lives would suck. I think. Lent is an opportunity for us to discipline ourselves to discipline ourselves. And to continue speculating, perhaps in turn teaches us how to commune better with God, since it takes discipline to do that.
Alas, that being my justification as a protestant keeping Lent, I may not have done so as a Catholic. I suppose to some degree that's okay, but you Catholics out there are free to tear to me to shreds on this one. I'm standing in the middle of the street. I'm not moving and you're coming down the street on your two-wheeler, maybe you have a bat-pod. I'm not moving, so hit me if you like. I'm a target.
Anyway, if I haven't learned anything about Catholicism, or the significance of Lent, I have learned something by giving up facebook. And I tend to believe that my experience was spiritual.
I'm not sure yet if the distance I felt from my relationships had anything to do with facebook, but I am already starting to see the connection between my lack of facebook and my lack of feeling connected with my friends. I mean that's not a difficult connection to see. But what I wonder is if this is really sad and I'm addicted to facebook in an unhealthy way, or if I am just a human living in the technological age, but still human and need to be connected. Perhaps part of the problem is that there are not many things that I connect with people about. I like difficult things like philosophy, theology, religion, sports, and 20th century American novels, and stream of consciousness weirdness. Facebook was a way for me to wax eloquent with a witty status or something and get a response, a connection from a friend.
Perhaps this is just classic overthinking. But here's a thought that's a little more universal maybe. Is the feeling of being connected through facebook human connection, or is it superficial? If my feeling unconnected is a result of not being connected to facebook, and I begin to feel better now that I'm on facebook, shall I as a modern person question the possibility of true human connection in my lifetime? Well, maybe I better not go that far. I am married and feel extremely connected to my wife and in more ways than sexual. But the real question is; if I should conclude that my lack of connection was due to my fast from facebook, should I think twice about getting connected again? The broader question being asked, which is totally another post is; what is modern man, and should he fear his machines and technics? Are they merely giving him a different way to express his drive for human connection, or are they giving him a totally superficial experience and alienating him altogether? Or... are we alienated either way and doomed to a life of anxious desire for a connectivity we cannot completely understand or fulfill?
In the end, my lenten experience brought me know closer to understanding Lent, Catholicism, or the plight of modern man. But it did heighten my awareness of the reality of existing as a modern man and brought some of the questions that were sitting by the punch bowl, in the dark, away from the dance floor to the dance floor. And I think it was a valuable experience then, since these questions seem very urgent and relevant.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Existential Christianity
Existentialism is the doctrine that existence precedes essence. But is existentialism defining it's own essence before examining its existence? This apparent contradiction is only problematic if we locate the problem in the definition. But perhaps the problem is in the label, existentialism. The axiom; the a priori, of the ideal in question is that existence precedes essence.
When we think in terms of existence and not essence we find that existence presents problems of which essence thinking could never conceive, and therefore never solve, and our existence problems are real. However, what if they are not real? How would we know that our existential experiences are real? Surely we cannot discover their falseness by examining them according to essence, that realm which cannot conceive of existence problems in the first place? How shall it have the answer to a problem of which it cannot conceive? The philosophy of essence is an hilarious Holiday Inn commercial.
Some of you are begging for examples of an existence problem that cannot essentially be addressed. That's another post. Ha. What I find interesting is the claim that the existence precedes essence paradigm is the one under which the ancient Jews and the Jewish cult called Christianity operated; the claim that God's law was not the handing down of universal principles, but instructions concerning how His redeemed culture is to live, that is exist in a surrounding and yet unredeemed world.
That existentialism is now associated with atheism is unfortunate. I for one feel as if it has been hijacked. And when we find conservative Christians dismissing the published thoughts of more moderate Christian thinkers as the "brooding existentialism put forth as Christianity" I don't know whether to laugh or bang my head against the table. Sure, existentialism bears an atheistic form, but its main prognosticator, Soren Kierkegaard, argued for an existence paradigm in order to save Christianity from being swallowed up by a humanistic worldview. I will not fall into the trap of saying that existentialism is essentially Christian, but I think pointing out that existentialism as we know it, that is, the consistent use of an existence thought paradigm, was originally thought in relation to Christianity in order to avoid Christianity's death at the hands of the essence paradigm is noteworthy because as I have discovered at this point in my life, existence driven Christianity is what makes the most sense to me.
That folks should confuse existentialism with atheism, relativism, or the denial of any abstract truth, or the affirmation that all truth is contextual is an unfortunate misunderstanding. But that's another post too.
When we think in terms of existence and not essence we find that existence presents problems of which essence thinking could never conceive, and therefore never solve, and our existence problems are real. However, what if they are not real? How would we know that our existential experiences are real? Surely we cannot discover their falseness by examining them according to essence, that realm which cannot conceive of existence problems in the first place? How shall it have the answer to a problem of which it cannot conceive? The philosophy of essence is an hilarious Holiday Inn commercial.
Some of you are begging for examples of an existence problem that cannot essentially be addressed. That's another post. Ha. What I find interesting is the claim that the existence precedes essence paradigm is the one under which the ancient Jews and the Jewish cult called Christianity operated; the claim that God's law was not the handing down of universal principles, but instructions concerning how His redeemed culture is to live, that is exist in a surrounding and yet unredeemed world.
That existentialism is now associated with atheism is unfortunate. I for one feel as if it has been hijacked. And when we find conservative Christians dismissing the published thoughts of more moderate Christian thinkers as the "brooding existentialism put forth as Christianity" I don't know whether to laugh or bang my head against the table. Sure, existentialism bears an atheistic form, but its main prognosticator, Soren Kierkegaard, argued for an existence paradigm in order to save Christianity from being swallowed up by a humanistic worldview. I will not fall into the trap of saying that existentialism is essentially Christian, but I think pointing out that existentialism as we know it, that is, the consistent use of an existence thought paradigm, was originally thought in relation to Christianity in order to avoid Christianity's death at the hands of the essence paradigm is noteworthy because as I have discovered at this point in my life, existence driven Christianity is what makes the most sense to me.
That folks should confuse existentialism with atheism, relativism, or the denial of any abstract truth, or the affirmation that all truth is contextual is an unfortunate misunderstanding. But that's another post too.
Monday, March 14, 2011
What Should We Do Today?
I walked into my favorite coffee shop and the first thing I saw was a headline that read, "Maybe 10,000 Dead". I thought, "This is terrible." This coming after a discussion with a friend about the book of Job. It all made me feel awfully self-centered because if it is true that 10,000 Japanese folks were killed, that means that there are perhaps scores of thousands of people hurting in Japan today. I am only one person here in the United States, and unless I am ridiculously self-conscious I'm doing pretty good. (Truth be told as a "Westerner" I am almost definitely too self-conscious already.) And now the more I write the more this inwardness; this inward approach to the whole topic sickens me, as if what is going on in Japan is not really happen, as if the earthquake is not real. There is no reason for me to be any less shaken in my faith about the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear explosions, than if something tragic happened in my personal life. But to take it a step further, and not to be overly cynical (trust me this post is going somewhere), all of these people, and all of us, are heading toward the same fate in the end. Given, most of us may not lose so much all at once as have many people in Japan this morning, (or it would be evening for them)but we will all lose. It's only normal for these things to affect our faith, if we have any. My main point so far is to say, if we're willing to think about it deeply, and it usually takes these catastrophes to make us think deeply about it, the whole thing can seem so absolutely absurd, but at the end of the day, regardless of the fact that it's unnatural to be as broken about the Japan earthquake, as the Japanese themselves, and certainly to some degree it would inappropriate and insensitive to purport to be; the other side of the coin is that we share a common humanity with them, a common experience, though perhaps variant in degree, of living in a world of suffering with a conscious that whispers to us that it ought not be so. To put the questions in blunt terms; "Given these sorts of "natural" disasters, why believe in God? And why should it take a personal tragedy to make us ask the question?
On one hand there is no easy way to handle it, and on the other, to try and explain in with abstract words seems both insensitive and impossible. But I have always said that faith exists for such a time as this. I don't believe this to be a comfort, nor the answer that anyone wants to hear, but I do believe its the truth, and the only thing I can say. No, there's one more thing I can say. People of the Christian faith believe that God became a man and suffered as a man, and that this is the universal atoning sacrifice for sin, but also that we now know that we have a God who knows what's it's like to suffer as a human, and now we can come to Him on terms as a human. We can say to God, "Why?!" We can explain how absurd this all seems. And we know that rarely is it the case that God answers our questions directly, rarely telling us what we want to hear, but always telling us what we need to hear, and to me He seems to be saying, "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" How is God perfect? How did He fulfill all things? He shared in suffering. His incarnation and crucifixion were not only the end and climax of our Christian story, but also the beginning. He died as our Savior, finally, but also as our example for eternity. I think it would be very pious but finally un-Christian of us to continue to speak eloquent thoughts about God's love to one another, and never show God's love. Recall James , where James tells us that faith without works is dead faith, and to be doers of the word, not merely hearers. So what should we today?
On one hand there is no easy way to handle it, and on the other, to try and explain in with abstract words seems both insensitive and impossible. But I have always said that faith exists for such a time as this. I don't believe this to be a comfort, nor the answer that anyone wants to hear, but I do believe its the truth, and the only thing I can say. No, there's one more thing I can say. People of the Christian faith believe that God became a man and suffered as a man, and that this is the universal atoning sacrifice for sin, but also that we now know that we have a God who knows what's it's like to suffer as a human, and now we can come to Him on terms as a human. We can say to God, "Why?!" We can explain how absurd this all seems. And we know that rarely is it the case that God answers our questions directly, rarely telling us what we want to hear, but always telling us what we need to hear, and to me He seems to be saying, "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" How is God perfect? How did He fulfill all things? He shared in suffering. His incarnation and crucifixion were not only the end and climax of our Christian story, but also the beginning. He died as our Savior, finally, but also as our example for eternity. I think it would be very pious but finally un-Christian of us to continue to speak eloquent thoughts about God's love to one another, and never show God's love. Recall James , where James tells us that faith without works is dead faith, and to be doers of the word, not merely hearers. So what should we today?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Just for Fun
Just felt the need to be philosophical you know? Which really for me is not something I always take too seriously, its more of a hobby than anything else. I guess my level of seriousness depends on the topic, and the topic on my mind which is about to fall on this blog post is not one I really take very seriously. But it is fun, at least for me.
The discussion starts as all good discussions do, with a question; what does it mean to be a fatalist? If everything happens according to plan, always, and if your were not keenly aware of the plan, which we evidently are not, otherwise we would all agree on the plan, and there would be no need for a discussion about fatalism, since its opposite could never even be conceived, then given differing situations and a confusing existence, the world is not at least completely predetermined, because, in summary, if it were, the whole discussion would be impossible.
So there is free will? The only problem with free will is that if it is our decisions which determine our "destinies", (whatever that means)and evidently under a free will mode of things, there can be nothing but chance, how do we make a wise decision? What is a wise decision if it is all free will and chance?
There are "patterns" which we observe in nature, and our experiences. The existence of a pattern would most definitely compromise an absolute stance on free will, for a pattern explicitly undermines chance.
The question would then be whether or not these patterns we observe are real or illusory, inherent, or contrived? It's possible we invent patterns in order to go on living, in order to deal with the absurdity of total free will and chance. But this in no way affects our ability to "make sense" of things, it only throws into question, what "making sense" is, as it is apparently at least trying to make sense of things. At least that's what we thought was the point of all this chatter thus far. But if we need the patterns, and we can't possibly know if they are illusory or contrived, why not act as if the patterns exist in order to go on living? The clearest thing to me is that if you're a fatalist, you believe in either a mean fate, or a dumb human, whether this human is dumb because she is absurdly pessimistic, or because she assume too much about God, and if your a "free willer", what threat is a fatalist to your obvious free will anyway? And the most profound clarity is the clarity that before you at every single instance, great or small, there is a decision to be made.
The discussion starts as all good discussions do, with a question; what does it mean to be a fatalist? If everything happens according to plan, always, and if your were not keenly aware of the plan, which we evidently are not, otherwise we would all agree on the plan, and there would be no need for a discussion about fatalism, since its opposite could never even be conceived, then given differing situations and a confusing existence, the world is not at least completely predetermined, because, in summary, if it were, the whole discussion would be impossible.
So there is free will? The only problem with free will is that if it is our decisions which determine our "destinies", (whatever that means)and evidently under a free will mode of things, there can be nothing but chance, how do we make a wise decision? What is a wise decision if it is all free will and chance?
There are "patterns" which we observe in nature, and our experiences. The existence of a pattern would most definitely compromise an absolute stance on free will, for a pattern explicitly undermines chance.
The question would then be whether or not these patterns we observe are real or illusory, inherent, or contrived? It's possible we invent patterns in order to go on living, in order to deal with the absurdity of total free will and chance. But this in no way affects our ability to "make sense" of things, it only throws into question, what "making sense" is, as it is apparently at least trying to make sense of things. At least that's what we thought was the point of all this chatter thus far. But if we need the patterns, and we can't possibly know if they are illusory or contrived, why not act as if the patterns exist in order to go on living? The clearest thing to me is that if you're a fatalist, you believe in either a mean fate, or a dumb human, whether this human is dumb because she is absurdly pessimistic, or because she assume too much about God, and if your a "free willer", what threat is a fatalist to your obvious free will anyway? And the most profound clarity is the clarity that before you at every single instance, great or small, there is a decision to be made.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Lyrical Musings III
A Regressive Code of Morality (The Rise of Absurdity)
Carbon copy twisted destinies
Tied knots on top of withered ephiphanies
Cramped neatly folded inside
To get a cozy moment just in time for
The unapathetic
Dramatic exeunt tonight
They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different
A corrosive exotic mess layers the floor
Reeks nasty now confess you don't want anymore
But cheerful you give your stony brow away
To stewards wroth with nothing nice to say
They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different
Talked to a mistress so fair
Talked to a martyr who cared
Talked to a manic so proud
Talked to a maiden so loud
Talked to a Christian with doubts
Talked to a Christ-child on clouds
Talked to a foreigner
Friday talked to a freed slave.
Experience
Compelling invitation
And a great expectation
And I suppose I can stay
But if you weren't here I'd go
And if you weren't here I stay away
And the audio goes
Goes on and on
And the audio goes
Goes on and on
Securely committed
Measured and fitted
And I suppose I'm good
But if you didn't smile I'd change
If you didn't frown I'd stay the same
And the video goes
Goes on and on
And the video goes
Goes on and on
They told me you were just a vision of a movie I'd seen more than
twice
They told me you were just a song
That I couldn't get outta my head
Well there's just somethin bout a movie that just makes me wanna go
There's just somethin' bout a song
That makes me wanna sing.
Carbon copy twisted destinies
Tied knots on top of withered ephiphanies
Cramped neatly folded inside
To get a cozy moment just in time for
The unapathetic
Dramatic exeunt tonight
They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different
A corrosive exotic mess layers the floor
Reeks nasty now confess you don't want anymore
But cheerful you give your stony brow away
To stewards wroth with nothing nice to say
They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as
happy as they are
They don't want to be who they are they just wonder who they're
supposed to be
But if they could be me
They'd be
No different
Talked to a mistress so fair
Talked to a martyr who cared
Talked to a manic so proud
Talked to a maiden so loud
Talked to a Christian with doubts
Talked to a Christ-child on clouds
Talked to a foreigner
Friday talked to a freed slave.
Experience
Compelling invitation
And a great expectation
And I suppose I can stay
But if you weren't here I'd go
And if you weren't here I stay away
And the audio goes
Goes on and on
And the audio goes
Goes on and on
Securely committed
Measured and fitted
And I suppose I'm good
But if you didn't smile I'd change
If you didn't frown I'd stay the same
And the video goes
Goes on and on
And the video goes
Goes on and on
They told me you were just a vision of a movie I'd seen more than
twice
They told me you were just a song
That I couldn't get outta my head
Well there's just somethin bout a movie that just makes me wanna go
There's just somethin' bout a song
That makes me wanna sing.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Examining the King
"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
That was Martin Luther King Jr. The purpose of this post is not to criticize the good doctor, nor the poetics of his poetically beautiful quote, but to use his quote as a springboard to question a vague and thus (in its vague state)untruthful perspective. It is not untruth in the ideal, but it is in the practical, but the practical has such a rare influence in this particular case that the ideal is for once actually too ideal, not too ideal in comparison to pragmatics, or what can actually happen, but too ideal in that it bears so little relation to how people in our day really think, and to the extent that even asking if they should think the in the way Dr. King prescribes does not have to jump through so many hoops, hoops which are close to an infinite number.
What I mean practically is that the quote does not make clear, (to say nothing about Dr. King's speech, for it may itself make clear) what exactly he is trying to have the street sweeper do. Are street sweeper's lazy? Not in my city. My streets are clean. Are they ashamed that they are street sweepers? This is a possibility. But it is an equal possibility that they are ecstatic to have the job, and it is another equal possibility that they would much rather be drinking and begging with their friends. This is the honest to God truth of the matter.
So then if the goal is trying to lift the street sweeper from the shame of his vocation then it only falls on the dull ears folks who have decent vocations. And it assumes the very problem that is trying to be remedied. It seems you Dr. King are more ashamed of being a street sweeper than a street sweeper is. The rich, by virtue that they are rich are in proportion to their wealth probably more ashamed of street sweeping, and the street sweeper in proportion to his wealth less ashamed of it. If it is not something to be ashamed of, and if our streets are clean, then what would want do we want them to think by this quote? Or forget "them", the street sweepers, but how should all of us apply this quote?
If Dr. King, (again it doesn't matter who the author is, and I am no doubt taking this quote out of context, but already taken out of context, this does present a worldview which many people mistakenly have, and so this is in no disrespect to Dr. King, whose name in this post merely gives nomenclature to the ideal expressed)is merely saying all work is worth the effort, regardless of what society says it's worth. This is an ideal that is worth the individual internalizing and applying. But the quote, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't seem to realize that the statement is actually an indictment on society such as ours which does see street sweeping as a lower profession, a profession necessary for the rich to benefit from Capitalism, but a profession in which Capitalists look down upon because they cannot understand the individual who would not have ambitions to capitalize, an individual who is much less ashamed of himself then they are of him, an individual who, for all anyone knew already internalized Dr. King's message, and thus didn't even need to hear it in the same way in which the pure in heart gain practically nothing from Jesus' exhortation that the pure in heart are blessed. They already know that. Only if this is a sly indictment upon snobby capitalists is this a worthy quote, just as Jesus' beatitudes are are sly indictment on the snobby Pharisees whose eyes were blinded to their own indictment. They may even cheer the sermon or the quote like Larry Flint's customers cheered his indictment.
That was Martin Luther King Jr. The purpose of this post is not to criticize the good doctor, nor the poetics of his poetically beautiful quote, but to use his quote as a springboard to question a vague and thus (in its vague state)untruthful perspective. It is not untruth in the ideal, but it is in the practical, but the practical has such a rare influence in this particular case that the ideal is for once actually too ideal, not too ideal in comparison to pragmatics, or what can actually happen, but too ideal in that it bears so little relation to how people in our day really think, and to the extent that even asking if they should think the in the way Dr. King prescribes does not have to jump through so many hoops, hoops which are close to an infinite number.
What I mean practically is that the quote does not make clear, (to say nothing about Dr. King's speech, for it may itself make clear) what exactly he is trying to have the street sweeper do. Are street sweeper's lazy? Not in my city. My streets are clean. Are they ashamed that they are street sweepers? This is a possibility. But it is an equal possibility that they are ecstatic to have the job, and it is another equal possibility that they would much rather be drinking and begging with their friends. This is the honest to God truth of the matter.
So then if the goal is trying to lift the street sweeper from the shame of his vocation then it only falls on the dull ears folks who have decent vocations. And it assumes the very problem that is trying to be remedied. It seems you Dr. King are more ashamed of being a street sweeper than a street sweeper is. The rich, by virtue that they are rich are in proportion to their wealth probably more ashamed of street sweeping, and the street sweeper in proportion to his wealth less ashamed of it. If it is not something to be ashamed of, and if our streets are clean, then what would want do we want them to think by this quote? Or forget "them", the street sweepers, but how should all of us apply this quote?
If Dr. King, (again it doesn't matter who the author is, and I am no doubt taking this quote out of context, but already taken out of context, this does present a worldview which many people mistakenly have, and so this is in no disrespect to Dr. King, whose name in this post merely gives nomenclature to the ideal expressed)is merely saying all work is worth the effort, regardless of what society says it's worth. This is an ideal that is worth the individual internalizing and applying. But the quote, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't seem to realize that the statement is actually an indictment on society such as ours which does see street sweeping as a lower profession, a profession necessary for the rich to benefit from Capitalism, but a profession in which Capitalists look down upon because they cannot understand the individual who would not have ambitions to capitalize, an individual who is much less ashamed of himself then they are of him, an individual who, for all anyone knew already internalized Dr. King's message, and thus didn't even need to hear it in the same way in which the pure in heart gain practically nothing from Jesus' exhortation that the pure in heart are blessed. They already know that. Only if this is a sly indictment upon snobby capitalists is this a worthy quote, just as Jesus' beatitudes are are sly indictment on the snobby Pharisees whose eyes were blinded to their own indictment. They may even cheer the sermon or the quote like Larry Flint's customers cheered his indictment.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Ramblings
Generally liberals are intuitive in the things that they value. The preservation of our environment; the protection of women; the right treatment of people regardless of their sexual preferences/orientation/whatever you want to call it; the simple atrocity of war which is essentially killing people for nationalistic or greedy reasons, not usually is self-defense or the ironic preservation of life; the observation that guns kill people, and so the logical necessity to remove guns from society; and the need to take care of the "less fortunate".
Admittedly I grew up in highly conservative environments, and so this will taint or improve my point of view, depending on how you view it. But I see many of the liberal intuitive values as shortsighted, naive, and ultimately deceitful. For instance, it sounds nice to repeal gun laws but pragmatically that means that all the people who got them legally can no longer get them, which means that two groups of people will be armed, the government and criminals. It's good to give the less fortunate money, but its bad to reward the irresponsible, and it is not prudent, nor fun to have a chunk of our income go to an invisible middle man called the government, so that irresponsibility and maddening bureaucracy flourishes.
I may have just built some of the biggest straw men you've ever seen. Feel free to knock them down yourselves. Enlighten me, but I must say this is just the way I see it.
But here's the other thing I don't understand. Why don't conservatives understand what they sound like when they vehemently disagree and appeal to past traditions to support their vehement opposition? I mean the problem with the liberal view is that it is naive and intuitive, right? It's not intentionally destructive, I don't think? So while there may be room to point out the pragmatic difficulties, when you show vehement disagreement, when you show passion, it's hard for the rest of us to think that anyone is that passionate about correcting naivety, so we naturally assume that you (conservatives)throw logic out the window, and generally love to kill your enemies which are, "the bastards who flew their planes into the Twin Towers," and "liberals".
If hippies are threatening to you, I wonder what it is that's at stake. Can a hippie make someone less manly, by just existing? Are pacifists dangerous? The only really safe people are the ones who are armed? I see people get really mad when they see someone dressing differently, or talk differently, or act differently. I don't understand it. I've seen dudes in frustration express their wishes that people would just be normal. Maybe my makeup is different. But I just don't care. I mean, if you have a problem with skinny jeans, then at least understand that the ancient Egyptians have just as much of a right to accost you for your "pants".
Admittedly I grew up in highly conservative environments, and so this will taint or improve my point of view, depending on how you view it. But I see many of the liberal intuitive values as shortsighted, naive, and ultimately deceitful. For instance, it sounds nice to repeal gun laws but pragmatically that means that all the people who got them legally can no longer get them, which means that two groups of people will be armed, the government and criminals. It's good to give the less fortunate money, but its bad to reward the irresponsible, and it is not prudent, nor fun to have a chunk of our income go to an invisible middle man called the government, so that irresponsibility and maddening bureaucracy flourishes.
I may have just built some of the biggest straw men you've ever seen. Feel free to knock them down yourselves. Enlighten me, but I must say this is just the way I see it.
But here's the other thing I don't understand. Why don't conservatives understand what they sound like when they vehemently disagree and appeal to past traditions to support their vehement opposition? I mean the problem with the liberal view is that it is naive and intuitive, right? It's not intentionally destructive, I don't think? So while there may be room to point out the pragmatic difficulties, when you show vehement disagreement, when you show passion, it's hard for the rest of us to think that anyone is that passionate about correcting naivety, so we naturally assume that you (conservatives)throw logic out the window, and generally love to kill your enemies which are, "the bastards who flew their planes into the Twin Towers," and "liberals".
If hippies are threatening to you, I wonder what it is that's at stake. Can a hippie make someone less manly, by just existing? Are pacifists dangerous? The only really safe people are the ones who are armed? I see people get really mad when they see someone dressing differently, or talk differently, or act differently. I don't understand it. I've seen dudes in frustration express their wishes that people would just be normal. Maybe my makeup is different. But I just don't care. I mean, if you have a problem with skinny jeans, then at least understand that the ancient Egyptians have just as much of a right to accost you for your "pants".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
