Nancy is such a fool. Her ego, TDS, and self-serving idiocy should be evident to all. I would rather trust Andrew Yang, who is far more respectable, than her on this matter. And if even he says that we should pass the bill, then that says a LOT about her. She’s a petty, spiteful little crook who shields herself in the name of the “American people” that she claims to represent and know. In reality she in all of her wealth and power couldn’t be MORE removed from their actual needs. This is how “elitists” argue. They know better than you do about what’s good for you. She hides behind excuses like, “The bill does not cover need x” in order to pretend she’s a champion of the needy. I’m sure ANYONE could find some need in the bill that’s not addressed (e.g, perhaps the disabled are not funded as well as they could be), but these are just stupid excuses not to pass a $1.8 trillion bill and address the other needs later. Bottom line: Nancy is holding the American people hostage because it’s election year and she does not want Trump to take credit. Nancy’s excuses are as fake as her teeth. She needs to shut up and pass the bill.
I’m reading BonJour’s book on Epistemology and here he talks about Hume’s Problem of Induction. Earlier he mentions how the prevailing response of modern philosophers is to affirm that Hume is basically correct. Have these philosophers lost their minds?! 
It always amazes me how philosophers can be so brilliant and yet so foolish at the same time. BonJour is great: he brings back what Aristotle had said AGES ago! Every time I read more modern philosophy, I’m more convinced that *overall* it’s one of the biggest mistakes ever. Things that the common man knows the philosopher no longer knows. Which led to all kinds of nonsense like postmodernism. This is why I’m a very ardent defender of common sense. EMBRACE ARISTOTLE!
Dear Catholic friends: give me the best videos, articles, and books in defense of the Roman Catholic Church. Bonus points if you can put them in order like a class course.
I created a playlist for myself with videos to watch. Any other additions are welcome:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQFSqqmSId62BvC7IiLSOEW_at388naP_&fbclid=IwAR3rFGdkAR5fBNZLJf4L-vXUFELG2fOLJT02j9Ee4gBXG3t82aMfxNsGfkM
Just had an idea! It would be amazing if I wrote a book called “A Thomistic Critique of Competing Metaphysical Theories” where I extensively address analytic and continental alternatives to Thomism. I’d show where they go wrong as well as what insights we should take from them. A good companion book would be “A Defense of the Viability of Metaphysics” against anti-metaphysicians. It would be a meta-metaphysical work. If I wanted to be cheeky, I would title it, “Making Metaphysics Great Again: An Incredible Defense of its Viability” Sometime after I would probably write a book entitled, “Quantum Mechanics’ Vindication of Aristotle.” I got other books in mind, but I”ll mention those another time.
Some people seem to mistakenly think you needn’t show gratitude for a compliment unless they’re complimenting something that you had some control over (e.g., writing a good paper). But this is readily false: If It is an objective fact that I wrote a good paper, then you *should* recognize it as a good paper. It’d be irrational or false for you think otherwise. Why should I be grateful for what you ought to recognize? It seems evident, however, that if someone compliments your writing that you should be grateful and say “Thank you” rather than “I’m fully aware.” Gratitude then isn’t dependent on whether you had control or not. As long as as it’s about you in some way, they can compliment you. It could be a biological accident (beauty), it could be an extrinsic feature (clothing or hair-do), a natural gift (intelligence), or what have you. If someone compliments you for either, the morally right, non-conceited response is to say thank you, not to say “I’m fully aware” or “Why the hell are you complimenting me? I didn’t earn it.” Now if the compliment is fake and has some ulterior motive, then trolling or giving a sarcastic response is fine. Some situations provide exceptions, but this works as general rule. The most uncharitable way to interpret this rule is to say, “Am I supposed to think that your compliment is your gift to me? That I needed your approval to validate my worth so I need to say thanks?” I can’t believe I need to explain how ridiculous this response is. Imagine everyone acted this way about each other’s compliments. We’d all be ripping each other apart! This assumes that the person is giving the compliment because (a) they think you’re worthless without it and (b) because they’re desperate to hear “thank you.”No, it’s simple: most people compliment you because they appreciate something you did or something about you and they just wanted to express it to you. The reason you say thank you is to show appreciation back. Social dynamics are about being reciprocal. Even if the compliment is cheesy, common, or whatever, that rule still applies. I understand for girls it gets annoying. In situations where the guys are whistling at girls like thirsty dogs, or flattering just to get in her pants, there’s no reason to express appreciation for lustful, objectifying behavior. It should be condemned. But condemn it for those reasons, not for silly unjustified assumptions like (a-b) or because beauty is an accident.
14Ben Hetland and 13 others16 CommentsLikeComment
Comments
Just going to say this: Don’t let fear of COVID-19 control your life. God says, “For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, “Fear not, I am the one who helps you.” (Isaiah 41:13) and “Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt 10:31). That doesn’t mean don’t take precautions, but let’s be real here. Your chances of dying from COVID-19 are extremely low unless you’re in the high risk category. Even if it was like the pandemic of 1918, instead of living in fear Christians should be fearing for the souls that will perish. We should boldly proclaim eternal life to a dying world. It just amazes me how obsessed people are about life in this world, but seem to be so blind to the pandemic of sin that exists in their own souls. Even worse are the Christians obsessed with demanding lockdowns, social distancing, and masks but are dead silent when it comes to the gospel. God sees where your priorities are. Your priorities are of this world and are not of God’s kingdom. If I die, I will gladly die! To live is Christ and to die is gain.
I am a classical conservative. This is a view of the world that stands on the shoulders of intellectual giants like Socrates, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, and Suarez. Most importantly, I stand on Christ who is truth. He and the Apostles affirm total depravity, traditional views of sexuality (contra LGBTQ), modesty, limited government*, personal responsibility, and many other traditional virtues. Great church fathers like Justin Martry, Athanasius, Tertullian, and Polycarp all agree. The great traditions of Judaism, RCC, Orthodox, and Protestantism affirm it as well. Not only that, but we have Scholasticism, which is a system of thought that dominated philosophy for ages. It defends common sense and refutes secular thought. This general tradition remains defended by great minds like Pruss, Feser, Oderberg, Haldane, Kerr, Fine, and Klima to name just a few. Secularism is but a mere disastrous blip in the grand scheme of thought.Classical conservatism by contrast is built off of this great tradition of great minds and their powerful arguments that spanned across many ages. Essentialism, teleology, and natural law are essential components of this view that affects EVERYTHING else. Kingdoms built upon its wisdom flourished, but those that abandoned or rejected it came to a desolate end. Contra Scruton, Oakshott, and Burke, conservatism is not just a temperament based on experience, it is a lived ideology. Their anti-ideology and borderline anti-reason approach really frustrates me sometimes, despite the fact that I agree with them in many areas. Classical conservatism IS an ideology of sorts, based on experience and tradition. That doesn’t mean it was always perceived or known *as* an ideology because roughly its just common sense, but it sure can and should be extrapolated into one. What is classical conservatism then? First, it takes a realist view of theism, metaphysics, essences, final causes, perception, language, knowledge, science, and natural law. We take the substance view of equality: everyone is equal in value regardless of sex, race, and other contingencies. Second, it takes a fallen view of human nature. It’s not systems that ultimately cause corruption, it’s human nature itself. There’s no human solution to evil or “oppression,” there are only trade-offs. Religion becomes quite important as a result. Third, if our view could be summarized, it would be subsidiarity, solidarity, religion, and family, and patriotism. This is in contrast to the depraved abuses of liberty, equality, and fraternity in America today. Feser explains this well (link below). We’re also not radical individualists but hold to an organic understanding of the society in which the common good and virtue is the goal. Fourth, we believe that the government should be explicitly conservative and built upon natural law. We reject neutrality, Leftist notions of tolerance, and libertarianism. I could say a lot more, but I’ll stop here. Read Chad McIntosh’s paper and Feser for a fuller explanation
I had the pleasure of engaging in a very thoughtful and important discussion with Britlandt Abney, who defended the pro-choice position. We delved into some complex philosophical issues such as the substance theory, the decisive moment theory, the reliability of intuitions, the moral salience of brain structure, criteria of personhood, Peter Singer’s infanticide, moral risk, and more! Enjoy.
Lots of fear, shaming others as “murderers”, fake news, and lots of government overreaches going on. While I want to be cautious, love my neighbor, wear a mask when asked, and not cause another to stumble, I also think the entire premise that this is built on is dubious and it enrages me to see the vitriol against churches and others who disagree. Here are some reasons to reject this fearmongry and tyranny: • Only 1% of the US population are confirmed to have gotten the virus and only 0.04% have died from it (https://bit.ly/3asmtzx). However, there are probably 10x more COVID-19 cases (https://bit.ly/2DQ8kjS). Young adults overestimate the risks of the virus by tenfold (https://bit.ly/3iBFm67), which shows they’re misinformed and guided by fear. • The best research thus far indicates that the lethality rate is in the 0.2-0.3% range, which is roughly double your typical flu. (https://bit.ly/3iFVwLH). • Death in babies to college students is almost non-existent. More than 80% of the deaths that occur are in those aged 65 and over (https://bit.ly/2XXqZ3W). • The vasty majority that do contract COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms or no symptoms (https://bit.ly/3iDIdeH). In one study, 88% of those who contracted were asymptomatic (https://bit.ly/2DYhDy2). • About 40% of COVID-19 deaths have been in nursing homes (https://nyti.ms/3gWEl8e). No doubt in part because of Cuomo, who foolishly sent 4,500 COVID-19 patients to nursing homes, and then blew off their deaths as “people die.” (https://bit.ly/2XU8pKf). • It’s a known fact that the death count is inflated (https://bit.ly/3iEi4wf). Even the CDC Director admits this (https://bit.ly/3gRaWfA). Those who died with COVID-19 are not distinguished from those who died because of COVID-19. Dismiss the media’s death count. There’s no context to them. We’ve never counted deaths in the way we’re counting them now.• Herd immunity is a real (https://bit.ly/2XXLhdI). Once a disease is rooted in a population, quarantine or lockdowns will not help the general public health. • There’s increasingly more evidence that HCQ, when combined with zinc and other drugs, is effective in reducing COVID-19 deaths (https://c19study.com/, https://bit.ly/30RI69o, https://bit.ly/31NGoVT). • Evidence suggests that the lockdown was a bad idea (https://bit.ly/2PREMVn & https://bit.ly/2Y0QkKy). By CDC’s own standards, this is a category 2 pandemic, which only recommending “consider[ing] school closures of less than four weeks, along with moderate efforts to reduce contacts among adults.” (https://bit.ly/3gVAisX). • The idea of locking down the entire country indefinitely, as opposed to quarantining just the vulnerable / sick and doing a partial lockdown, is an unproven ivory tower idea that’s only 14 years old (https://bit.ly/2PTbcid). • The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-69 killed 100,000 in the U.S. alone, and yet “there was no drama queen hysteria, no confinement of the whole country to house arrest, no massive infringement on the natural right of citizens to earn a livelihood.” (https://bit.ly/31OrjTX)• The scientific evidence for the effectiveness of masks is dubious (https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/), some pro-mask evidence is bad (https://bit.ly/2DQWKoD), assumes ideal usage, and is challenged by evidence that it’s transmitted via aerosol as well (https://bit.ly/3gWFv3A). Even WHO said there’s no direct evidence of the effectiveness of masks in healthy individuals (https://bit.ly/30SBlEm). • Sweden didn’t mandate masks or issue a lockdown. Their death count has plummeted to roughly one per day (https://bit.ly/3gXP02j). Their top virus expert said they see no point in wearing a mask (https://bit.ly/2E6zAdu). Initially, they did see a high death count but this is because their nursing facilities were not protected fast enough (https://bit.ly/2CvRSVq). Japan, South Korea, and others did not have nation-wide lockdowns either (https://bit.ly/3alwb6W).• This isn’t just about COVID-19 deaths. Suicides and drug overdoses have greatly increased during the lockdown (https://bit.ly/3ap4VEt). Domestic violence has greatly increased (https://bit.ly/33XKKfH). Tens of millions of jobs were lost (https://bit.ly/3kICINA). 1.4 million more deaths from tuberculosis because of shutdowns (https://bit.ly/2DUeorF). There’s been a spike in depression and anxiety (https://bit.ly/2PT1M6k). You can’t just demand a lockdown for a virus without weighing the consequences. • There’s plenty of reason to distrust the “experts” and media (https://bit.ly/3gZdXug & https://bit.ly/30VAQJv). Fauci admits to lying to us about masks (https://bit.ly/31TsnWH). The health establishment has been wrong on 10 different things (https://bit.ly/3kEVQwd). And it’s been heavily politicized. Fauci can condemn church gatherings, but can’t condemn BLM protests (https://bit.ly/33WJV6L). The hypocrisy is ridiculous. • There’s good reason to think that COVID-19 “is essentially a political campaign based on the pretense of health.” Aptly called the 2020 COVID coup (https://bit.ly/30W2Ooy). • Lastly, for more data, I would highly recommend https://bit.ly/3gVK8en and https://bit.ly/3kFEzCW. For a philosophical analysis of the lockdown, see Feser (https://bit.ly/2DR2sXB & https://bit.ly/2DYxUmD). ––––––––––––––––––––––Anyone who reads this and still disagrees but is not *at least* sympathetic and aware that this absolves the opposing side of most culpability (or moral wrongdoing) has their head up their butts. These people need to look up the word “charitable” in the dictionary and stop calling others “murderers” or “selfish” for disagreeing, all the while trying to force others to comply. They look like fools. No serious person denies that this virus is real, that every death it produces is tragic, or that the life of others is not worth protecting. A partial lockdown, isolating vulnerable individuals, and practicing good hygiene go a long way. But going beyond this to government mandates? That’s what the evidence does not justify, or if it does, then we have no reason to trust the experts because they’ve done a terrible job. 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍: Keep calm, wash your hands, self-isolate (if sick or vulnerable), be a lot more cautious around the vulnerable, be wise, and pray. What measures are “wise” is a choice that should be left up to you and private organizations, not the government. My view is that social distancing and mask wearing is a wise precaution, but not necessary. But if you disagree, I will respect you, as we all should
I’m in school again, and I am trying to decide what my focus should be. Metaphysics, natural theology, natural law, and political philosophy are my major interests. I want to take a common sense, Scholastic, and Christian approach to each of these fields. But it seems impossible to specialize in all of those fields. So I may drop natural theology just because there’s already a lot of work going into that. But that’s hard because I want to refute existential inertia, brute facts, and the so-called Gap problem. Maybe even offer arguments for the Trinity. I’d prefer not to drop metaphysics because I want to continue developing a Thomistic approach to Quantum Mechanics, offer a defense of prime matter, and defend essentialism. Then as far as natural law, I want to write a book called “A Meta-Ethical Case for Natural Law” where I evaluate every major realist theory of ethics and demonstrate how they must all assume that essence grounds goodness, which would show NL is superior. I also want to evaluate the role of intuitions and provide a defense of the perverted faculty argument. Less abstractly and more practically, I want to write a natural law approach to political philosophy where I offer a defense of classical conservatism and refute competing philosophies, especially those from the Left like John Rawls. Lastly, I want to do something like Descartes. In my opinion, his approach can be salvaged if we use Scholasticism. I’ll assume radical skepticism, show how that fails, return to common sense, demonstrate God’s existence, and then argue for the entire Scholastic foundation. But more than that, I want this to be a poetic, philosophical journey of wonder. Something like “The Consolations of Philosophy” except I’ll go from metaphysics, epistemology, natural law, natural theology, politics, and eventually Christianity itself. It’ll be an encapsulation of my thought process from beginning to end, where I’ll use philosophical + theological arguments to support it. It’ll be a long series. I’ll probably call it “Contemplations.” Anyways, I’m just daydreaming out loud here. Who knows if I’ll ever get to do any of this, or whether it’s even a good idea. Any thoughts? Or other avenues you think I should take?
Newer Posts