Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT
- W: "But I take the position that while a philosophical, political, economic, etc. position can't be any better because it or its proponents are Catholic, it could be made worse by that fact (e.g., to any extent that its premises require any sort of revelation or reliance on authority).
So, I haven't avoided Augustine, Aquinas or St. Anselm because they are Catholic (and have in fact enjoyed and learned from them), but I take their extreme religious involvement to make it necessary to exercise additional caution when reading them."JDK: Yeah, I get it. You've got this bias, which I just find ridiculous. Why should their faith make them less credible? Where does that knee jerk reaction come from?Now, I suppose I have a bias that will cause me to be circumspect when reading the avowed and "atheist with certainty" (the agnostic raises few red flags for me) . My bias is because there is no community nor an historical tradition which could come to bear down and temper the "avowed and certain atheist". In other words, there is no true peer review going on. (This is some thing that is different from other religious traditions including the protestant tradition, which often is all self-appointed self-anointed.) For the avowed and certain atheist it is simply a matter of personal (maybe even gnostic - claims to secret knowledge) epiphany - which is just about as bad as reliance upon personal purported faith revelations.My tradition though has to deal with the basic notion that no one is an island but belongs to a community: now and in the past and in the future. Or maybe put another way, we as a community and tradition have been thinking about these things for a very long time. Longer than even the oldest universities.I'd think that maybe because of what you find enjoyable and useful in Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, etc. you should ask why these guys were religious.Let me also put it this way. Most of the land taxer/georgist thing has been at the mercy of attempted co-option from anarchists, libertarians, and socialists. Attempted co-option from these groups makes the land tax message even more marginal.On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:
That some smart and otherwise excellent thinkers in various fields have been Catholic is both true and unsurprising, given the numbers and their interest in scholasticism. But I take the position that while a philosophical, political, economic, etc. position can't be any better because it or its proponents are Catholic, it could be made worse by that fact (e.g., to any extent that its premises require any sort of revelation or reliance on authority).
So, I haven't avoided Augustine, Aquinas or St. Anselm because they are Catholic (and have in fact enjoyed and learned from them), but I take their extreme religious involvement to make it necessary to exercise additional caution when reading them.
The same is true of any religious proselytizers, IMHO.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
> > I am hoping that he just couched it in those terms to try to avoid getting clubbed by you for "god/religion". You really use that one way too much. People can have reasonable secular discussions about the nature of what it means to be human to its fullest extent, and from there intuit and or derive an outline of what natural (ie in accordance with our nature) rights might look like and should be protected. That those secular reasonable discussion might in the end look like the 2000 plus year tradition of the church :) should not upset agnostics and atheist and or non Catholics. You call always save face and claim that even a blind chicken can get a kernel now and then. We won't mind.<
> I think catholic perspectives, social teachings etc., are interesting. They are way more relevant to the private lives of catholics, and a model for how people could act *voluntarily* with each other, than to society/government as a whole, but they are nonetheless an important contribution to the general discussion society. I've superficially read some Distributist articles, and find a lot of perspectives there worth reading. For example the virtues of cooperatives and subsidiarity. I find there's a positive attitude towards Georgism, and where Georgism doesn't appear explicitly, a view of policies that may make society look like what Georgist policies would lead to. OTOH, there are views on Guilds, that conflict with more freedom-oriented economics, and where I'd object to an organization of society that took the interests of a societal model over economic freedom. But again, there's absolutely a value in non-secular soures.
Very truly yours
John D. Kromkowski
6803 York Road -- Suite 207
Baltimore, MD 21212
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.
- JDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.