Thursday, October 29, 2020

Mailvox: an objection to the trilemma

DSC objects to the philosopical concept of Münchhausen Trilemma. Posted without comment.

I object to the notion that what is called "fundamentalism" is no better an epistemological foundation than the other two parts of the trilemma. 

Why do chemistry, physics and biology involve so much lab-based education? Seeing something first hand offers the hope that a person can better delineate between the realm of conjecture and "real" reality, the stuff that doesn't give a fig what you think. I find that the older I get, the more of an empiricist I become. While I have broad personal experience in but a minute part of the whole world, I base my pyramids of trust on people whose primary premises match up to my own personal experience. Those who have very little first hand experience in anything must have very little data on which to base their pyramids of trust.

I aver that there are four kinds of questions: Those answerable by logic, those where experiment yields what is essentially certainty, those that yield answers that can never be better than "today's best guess," and those that cannot be answered by empiricism at all.

  • As you know, some things are true by axiom, ex. a consumable cannot be consumed and still remain available for consumption. These axioms are the foundation for what Hans Hermann Hoppe describes in his essay The Democratic Leviathan.
  • Hard science rests on experiments where the outcome is the same no matter how many times one considers repeating it. While dropping a stone a thousand times to see it fall may induce someone to posit that on the 1001th try it will rise when released, such a belief is clearly irrational. 
  • Much of today's "science," as you've well described, falls into the third category. It is the realm of statistical study, where confidence intervals, poisson distributions and Student T tests live. The 95% confidence interval of course posits that the hypothesis is 19/20ths likely to be true, but this is not remotely the same standard as category 2 above. Vast amounts of "social science" attempt to mimic this style of study, but there's no substance to it at all. "Real" science, in my view, is that where variables can actually be controlled, a condition that is laughably absent in a vast amount of what today is billed as science.
  • What happens to us when we die? Do we have consciousness beyond our physical envelope? Is there life on distant planets? What color is a virion, and if we could see it like we see a golf ball, what would it look like? These and myriad other questions cannot be answered via empiricism. Providing systematic answers to empirically unanswerable questions is the province of religion. Today's Equalist Cult religion is particularly odd, in that most of its dogma and sacraments are actually at odds with empirically-derived reality. It is thus a pure exercise of the "power" Orwell illustrated when O'Brian forces Smith to "see" a different number of fingers than O'Brian extends. The first step toward wisdom comes by calling things by their right names.

The author notes that "Human beings are rational animals." This is daffy on its face. Most humans may be capable of reasoning, but it's self-evident that few spend any time at all in this part of their mind. As Kahneman shows, experiment after experiment documents that most of the time we let the nearly autonomic part of our brain do all the thinking. Only rarely do we invoke our deliberative, analytical mind. Most people are largely creatures of emotion, and their decisions are based on what action or belief would yield the greatest emotional comfort...and it's usually to think and do what the herd surrounding them thinks and does. I was dismayed to confront that intelligence does not coassort with rationality. Very smart people are especially good at rationalizing their folly. 

 These are the premises on which I base my objection to axiom and empiricism being lumped in with circular reasoning and "turtles all the way down." Reality exists. The notion that people see different things when observing the same thing is baloney. If I drop a golf ball and simultaneously launch one horizontally, they will always hit the floor at the same time, no matter who insists with great fervor that the dropped one lands first. If, upon observing them bounce simultaneously, an observer still insists that they hit at different times, it's not a case of competing epistemologies. Some systems of thought rest on axiom. From axiom comes reliance on empiricism, trusting ones eyes when what's seen conflicts with others' ideological constructs. This is not a three part problem. Two of the trilemma's legs are folly, the third is the only means of attempting to align with reality in order to decide and act. Among today's great follies is insistence on baseless conjecture as fact. Our society is structured under Taylorist notions, that there's one best way to live, and the dogma that populates this conflicts openly with observed reality.

A modern example: Say's Law is "In order to consume, you must first produce." This is a logical axiom, given that if people consume without producing, eventually there's nothing produced and thus nothing to consume. If that's "fundamentalism" and somehow not axiomatically true, show me (Mr. Macris.) Monetary Madness since the 1960's posits that the ability to enter the market (to consume) can be created out of thin air via the act of borrowing. The IOU (generally a T-bond/T-bill) becomes wealth, and the borrowed loot goes straight into someone's hands to be used (mostly) to consume. No production precedes this consumption, so the net effect is less product available (but a vastly rising perception of wealth, both in holding the debt and in the rising prices of assets goosed by a tsunami of credit money.) 

Since the bond market low in 1981, the US gov't didn't need to tax in order to spend. This is why spending could skyrocket as tax cuts were passed. Domestic production could be shipped to China, who then sent us endless pre-landfilled junk in exchange for Treasury Debt. Since China doesn't trade in dollars, that loot came back here...and we now see that Americans pawned their land, their businesses and THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM in return for some trinkets. China bought our legislatures, our executive branch agencies and our judiciary. Pretty smart on their part. With the helicopter drop of $1,200/person thing this summer, we now see that credit creation has entered a new phase, where the government still does not need to tax, and people no longer need to work in order to consume. Everyone's a welfare recipient now., not just people on SSDI, AFDC, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Prior to this summer, only Big Business oligarchs and financiers received such loot. 

Where'd Say's Law go?

Labels: ,


Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 29, 2020 12:44 PM  

DSC -- I'm the author of the post on Contemplations. Thanks for reading my essay. However, you seem to have misunderstood my intent. I'm a committed foundationalist and the point of my essay series is to defend foundationalism.

Defend from what? Where you and I seem to disagree is in whether foundationalism needs to be defended. The point of the essay was to present the attack as it has existed since the time of Agrippa, and show the pernicious outcomes of that attack for our contemporary world.

Specific claims in your post above that are under attack today include:

1) "Reality exists". I agree, but this is questioned by phenomenalists, anti-realists, and many other postmodernists, continentals, etc. I want to defend this assertion from them.

2) "The notion people see different things when observing is baloney." I agree, but this is questioned by phenomenalists, indirect realists, and many others. Again, I want to defend this assertion from them.

3) "From axiom comes empiricism, trusting one's eyes". I agree, but Descartes, Kant, and all of their epigones think you and I are wrong. I also want to defend this assertion from them.

I had already posted the next in the series, Tackling the Trilemma, before Vox linked my first essay. If you read Tackling the Trilemma you will see me argue that axiomatic laws of thought and direct realism of perception are what we need to defend. And I'm working on further essays on those two matters.

So if you're attacking me as an anti-foundationalist, you've misread me. You and I are on the same team. We disagree only with regard to the gravity of the situation -- you seem to think that the skeptical attack can be dismissed self-evidently, and I take it seriously and think we need to deploy heavy thinking to fight back.

If you are already confident in your viewpoint, you can save yourself the mental suffering and move on. The blog is called "Contemplations on the Tree of Woe" because each essay takes an issue where modern society has gone wrong (that's the vulture pecking at our eyes) and then works towards biting the head of the vulture off. For instance, another essay lays out the "profit puzzle" of contemporary economics and shows how to answer it. If you don't like the format of "lay out the opposite side's case, then defend our side," you will hate, hate, hate my blog. The About page specifically warns everyone not to subscribe to spare themselves the misery.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 29, 2020 12:50 PM  

Among today's great follies is insistence on baseless conjecture as fact.
This is obviously a natural tendency, because that's a pretty good description of Greek and later philosophy and physics. Orbits must be round, because circles are perfect.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 29, 2020 1:09 PM  

Where'd Say's Law go?
It's still right there. We're eating the seed corn, that's all.

Blogger Crush Limbraw October 29, 2020 1:15 PM  

Empiricism, consumables, consumers.....ending with the last paragraph about endless debt - in other words, creating something out of nothing. How long will it last?
Yesterday, on Unz, there was posted an interview with Michael Hudson which relates. I posted this comment: "To understand Michael Hudson, answer the question: Why do nations and empires collapse?
He writes from a historical perspective – it’s not just accounting and finances!
His reference to Old Testament jubilee and debt forgiveness is a practical application of reality.
I have archived a whole series on this in DaLimbraw Library – – these are headnotes (on mobile phone format) to articles on this subject.
Here’s the reality – history shows that debt erasure is a default setting in societal conduct when that society collapses from its lack of previous debt forgiveness.
Pay me now or pay me later? It’s unavoidable!
A reply from another commenter pointed out an insightful paragraph from another Hudson piece: "There was consequently, on the part of the creditor class, a most pressing and practical reason to have Jesus put to death: He was demanding that they restore the property they had rapaciously taken from their debtors. And after His death there was likewise a most pressing and practical reason to have His Jubilee proclamation of a Clean Slate Amnesty made toothless, that is to say, made merely theological: So the rich could continue to oppress the poor, forever and ever. Amen."
It seems no matter where I go or what I do - I end up in the same place - it's all there spelled out thousands of years ago - everything new is old again?

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 29, 2020 1:20 PM  

I have yet to use that 1200 dollar card thing they sent.

It seems these days that where we expect people to see a glass as half empty or half full, they instead look at it and think "hey I want a cheeseburger!". Or perhaps that water is racist perhaps. Or maybe the glass is.
Knowing what self propelled stomachs most people are is why I don't shed tears over wars and famines.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos October 29, 2020 1:30 PM  

There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. Say’s Law isn’t enforced immediately. Eventually, we’ll all need virtual wheelbarrows of digital currency to purchase a loaf of bread. If you can find one. Proverbs 21:20, follow David the Good, keep your powder dry, and remember the Butlerian Jihad.

Blogger CM October 29, 2020 1:34 PM  

My essential problem with relying solely on empiricism is that each of us individually are not capable of experiencing all of life and we cannot experience all the consequences of our actions.

I must confess something I've been burying of late - I am trying to cling to God as a real spiritual being and not as a metaphor for over-arching reality. I don't know if it is theologically sound or Christian.

But the seeing God as over-arching reality is becoming much easier in these times. There is a Truth to Christianity that is empirical truth. It is a compendium of empiricism over generations - of which we are a speck and our own experiences are mere blips in the realm of total reality.

What happens to us when we die? Do we have consciousness beyond our physical envelope?

Does it matter? Life DOES continue after we die. The seeds I plant in this life will be reaped by my children. I will not experience all the consequences of my choices. Some of my choices will be experienced by my children, grand-children, and great-grand-children. Used to be, we had more appreciation, culturally, for this concept of "immortality."

So it is not suitable to simply rely on our own limited empiricism. Because it is minuscule when compared to the sum total of all empiricism experienced through generations of humanity.

And this is why tradition is necessary to pass down the knowledge of these experiences. So that we can continue to reap the good that our forebears have sown.

Blogger Cinco October 29, 2020 1:46 PM  

“The first step toward wisdom comes by calling things by their right names.”

I have have it in good authority that this is 100% incorrect.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 October 29, 2020 1:48 PM  

America is going to fall, Trump is simply the reprieve, warning, time to get set. Either willfully or moved by the spirit the $1200 was enough for many who had not done so to buy a firearm.

If Trump gets 4 more years then use it to prepare where you had not done so befor. Because Satan does not rest and his minions can only be delayed while he maintains dominion. When Christ returns we can find justice but until then you should heed christ's words to "sell your cloak and buy a sword"

Blogger Henry Lee October 29, 2020 1:56 PM  

My brother, who is retired from the NIH, calls himself a "Scientist" and so we should bow to his expertise. My view is that he was an administrator a lot longer than he was an active scientist and his expertise is expired. Back in the day, the cliche was that the half-life of an engineer was ten years. I imagine the same is true of "scientists" who haven't been in the lab in decades. Like, say, Fauci.

Blogger John Regan October 29, 2020 2:03 PM  

The effort to form and defend these categories might be wrong headed ab initio. We are all empiricists to a large degree, but dogmatic empiricism is incoherent. To be governed by reason is very close to being governed by logos. E. Michael Jones has some interesting things to say about that!

Blogger Unknown October 29, 2020 2:09 PM  

I had minored in stats in undergrad, and wrote my senior thesis on ways to improve social survey practices. Even then I knew most soft science numbers were dependent on things other than accuracy.

A friend is a clinical psych and the studies they do now are laughable, to the point of being absurd. Trying to draw conclusion about changing evidence based cognitive behavioral therapy based on a survey of five Y/N questions given to 20 or 40 patients by a harried office clerk at a VA hospital before a real appointment. The results are then placed on a poster and displayed at their version of a conference. (An actual poster, like one used for 8th grade class election in middle school).

Then I realized that if mental health care is that bad off on stats and sciences, as done by the highest qualified APA PhD psychologists, how jacked up must economics be?

Blogger xevious2030 October 29, 2020 2:15 PM  

“trusting ones eyes”
By observing with the eyes. Your eyes, optic nerves, brain. Brain processes and produces an image. The colors you see are constructs, though the difference in frequency is not. Change the brain, change the construct. Note, that does not change reality, but the observation.

"The notion people see different things when observing is baloney."
As Langdon says, light takes time to travel, so you see the past. Someone farther away sees farther into the past in the moment. One of you see the falling of the ball hit sooner than the other, and both of you see the contact after the contact is made.

"Reality exists"
The ball, made up mostly of empty space, which gives the appearance of being solid. Forget reality, the physical universe is not what you perceive it to be, by the eyes, assuming not a Matrix.

“I object to the notion that what is called "fundamentalism" is no better an epistemological foundation than”
They all have the same foundation, that what you perceive beyond you actually is. AA nailed it with the circularity of it.

Blogger xevious2030 October 29, 2020 2:17 PM  

Langen, not Langdon. Will forever be correcting that.

Blogger Daniel October 29, 2020 2:23 PM  

Self-evidentiary truths are recursive spasms if they must be named. "All belief is based on a prior belief" is itself a belief, yes, but not only is it not a self-evident belief, it is a self-contradictory critique of the truth. In short, it is a wonderful, magical lie.

In order to dispell these lies, you can't just say, "Stupid postmodern word-wizards!" and pretend that they've gone away.

You have to learn their ways before you can successfully oppose them.

Blogger Unknown October 29, 2020 2:43 PM  

"Restitutor Orbis wrote:you seem to think that the skeptical attack can be dismissed self-evidently, and I take it seriously"

Perfect intersubjective agreement is an ignis fatuus. Getting all of (say) Kant's followers to acknowledge the errors in their thinking is no more possible, or necessary, than digging up Kant's corpse and routing it in debate. That some people disagree with x has absolutely nothing to do with x's truth or its proof.

Blogger Dire Badger October 29, 2020 2:46 PM  

Two massive misstatements that were as false as when they were first written are that 'man is a social animal' and that "Man is rational'

Better to state that Man is a socializing animal and that man is rationalizing.

Blogger Dire Badger October 29, 2020 2:57 PM  

CM wrote:My essential problem with relying solely on empiricism is that each of us individually are not capable of experiencing all of life and we cannot experience all the consequences of our actions.

That is the biggest reason why I consider Wiccanism/Crowleyism and modern Atheistic Morality as 'religions' to be such an abomination.

"If it Harms no one, do as you will" makes the basic assumption that humans are, by their very nature, Potentially Omniscient... that they can somehow see, and predict, all the ramifications of every action that they take.

This is as dubious and intellectually retarded as the libertarian assumption that all Humans can be modified so that they are inherently fair to each other.

ANY system that demands humans universally take on Godlike attributes, omniscience or Omnibenevolence, is insanely stupid and horrifyingly dangerous to pursue.

Blogger Immortan Joe Biden October 29, 2020 3:11 PM  

Empiricism is self-refuting. It, as well as foundationalism, suffer from a number of problems. Namely; the myth of the given, the problem of the external world, the problem of induction, the status of immaterial objects, and the fact that there is no proper "basic beliefs"

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau October 29, 2020 3:28 PM  

The beads that bought Manhattan will be worth more than fiat dollars soon.

Blogger millie78 October 29, 2020 3:28 PM  

"Why do chemistry, physics and biology involve so much lab-based education? Seeing something first hand offers the hope that a person can better delineate between the realm of conjecture and "real" reality, the stuff that doesn't give a fig what you think."

Actually, you're wrong. Hard sciences use labs because they believe (as a matter of dogma) that the universe is ordered and predictable and thus when you observe some phenomena once, you have observed it "perpetually." That is, it is assumed that, say, the relationship between water and heat at a given atmospheric pressure is an eternal relationship (e.g. if you heat water at sea level to 250 degrees fahrenheit, it will be in the form of vapor.) This is dogma, pure and simple, because we humans cannot possibly monitor all conditions of being uninterrupted in perpetuity, and even if we could, we could never know if our assumptions of the laws of the universe were true prior to the first time we measured them.

I'd strongly recommend that you read the book, God's Philosophers, as it will give you insight how modern hard sciences are built on the foundation of Roman Catholic theology. It's the very essence of dogma, which means the assertion of the Münchhausen trillema is correct and your objection is wrong. Whether you realize it or not, hard science is religious dogma, specifically Roman Catholic dogma.

Blogger ChewbacaTW October 29, 2020 4:31 PM  

"The notion that people see different things when observing the same thing is baloney." Would that this was true. Diagnostic work and consensus of solution implementation would be far easier otherwise. But any master trying to teach an apprentice knows better. Even people of the same experience level observe the same thing differently... particularly if they are of different intellectual dispositions.

Is the glass half full? Half empty? Is it twice as large as it needs to be?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 29, 2020 5:27 PM  

millie78 wrote:Whether you realize it or not, hard science is religious dogma, specifically Roman Catholic dogma.
The Roman Church has gotten a lot right, down through the centuries.

Blogger Steve Samson October 29, 2020 5:32 PM  

@Crush I know better than to direct our host to a video, but I'd like to draw your attention to this video re: debt forgiveness or a perversion thereof

You may have already seen it, or the document it references, in which case I apologise for wasting your time.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 29, 2020 5:40 PM  

Restitutor Orbis, thanks for the reply (to me, as I sent the mailvox.) You highlight a consequence of my paradox, that once my wife joined me in early retirement I have very little time to peruse others' views. I didn't invest the time to understand your position prior to commenting.

Blog comment dialogues were a vice of mine, a massive time-sink, and a reminder that no one other than me cares much about what I think. Vox Day, you and others play the role of Isaiah in Nock's 1936 essay Isaiah's Job. It's not a role I can, do or want to play. I fancy myself of the Remnant, so I appreciate the effort, even if I think it's thankless.

Still lacking the time to offer an improved dialogue here, I'll note a few things. (1) I've said for over a decade that we face what I think is a resumption of the English Civil War. I could make the case that the underlying conflict there was similar to the religious wars your blog described. The questions over which people used to kill each other were my "Q4," religious answers to unanswerable questions. Now it's warfare over Q3 questions that masquerade as Q4, where people claim a computer model is "science" and label those who question its garbage-in, garbage-out premise-conclusion BS as "anti-science," or where Lewontin's Fallacy is endlessly cited as unshakable scientific axiom.

The modern religion is just a rehash of the Gnostic Heresy, as I figure you conclude as well, just dressed in science clothes by people who have little real experience in a lab.

(3) I do think this matters. I see a great conflagration coming, and the fictional genre of "zombie apocalypse" is simply foreshadowing. The zombies stand in for the rapidly growing legions of people who can no longer remotely contribute real production to our innovation-stuffed post-industrial world. Stacked innovation moves us toward a world where the payoff for high-IQ, high-conscientiousness people is nearly infinitely leveraged. Unlike the transition from agrarian societies to industrial societies, there's literally no purpose for a growing majority of people, and the last 50 years' answer, endless make-work in insurance, finance, useless or harmful medical services, etc., was only possible due to a one-off confluence of offshoring, consumerism and hedonism enabled by the belly-laugh notion that an IOU is wealth, and that money once issued in exchange for actual production can be issued infinitely on the PROMISE of future production. At its logical end, we'd all starve while holding mountains of promises for next years crop not planted, pork and beef not birthed, etc. As I said, Say's Law is axiomatic, and violations of it are simply frauds. We head toward a time when a few high-IQ, high-capability people will control all the planting, the harvesting, the refining and delivery of pretty much everything. We already have a massive problem with the millions of sub-85 IQ people even the ARMY admits can't be trained to so much as clean pots and pans. What happens when this cutoff is more like 120, and the real work is done exclusively by the one in 500 with an IQ above 140? How's that going to work, a world of moochers and parasites empowering the demons to enslave the tiny minority of productive? Seems unlikely. But who wants to stand in for Nature (or God) and decide who is worthy? Thanks but no thanks. That's not in the human wheelhouse.
End my too-long part 1 of 2

Blogger dc.sunsets October 29, 2020 5:44 PM  

Part 2 of 2: (4) A great conflict, a reorganization, is coming. I don't know how it will play out, and anyone who claims they do is lying or foolish. I don't expect to live to see the end of it, this isn't some kind of made-for-TV movie with a beginning, middle and end in 90 minutes. It's just the next part of the endless parade we're blessed to witness during our too-brief stay on this plane. I hope nation-states fragment into city-states where people of like-mind choose to coexist under the same polity and those who insist on different behaviors/beliefs are simply exiled to live among their own. High fences make good neighbors and all that.
(5) Arguing about it is futile. People rarely change their minds. Most people, regardless of IQ, simply herd. The world will go as it goes. The book I have on my table to read is Taleb's Antifragile. I'm curious how he sees all this (the book predates the latest collective insanities of tranny-this and wokeness-that, unfortunately.)

Every person (system, etc.) has elements of fragility, resilience and adaptability. I accept the fragility inherent in life, I tried to build in a little resilience so as to buy me some time to adapt as the future becomes the present. The future belongs to those who show up for it, and I've acted to see my family tree has lots of seedlings. We should always remember, our ancestors survived the Plague, pogroms and the warfare that characterized much of Europe's history. We can't complain. Keep blogging and figuring it all out. Isaiah's Job never ends.

Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 29, 2020 6:01 PM  

@dcs/25 - Thanks for the response! I have only come to see the imminent war in the last four years, so you're at least 5 to 10 years ahead of me in your prognostication. But I do see it, now, and for the same reasons you do. (GamerGate was my big wake-up: Until then I was comfortably dumb in my nerdy world of escapist entertainment.)

Good point re: English Civil War and zombie apocalypse as stand in for obsolescent humanity in the post-industrial world. Regarding the latter, the analogy I've used is "how many draft horses were needed after the tractor became mainstream?" There were tens of millions of them in the 19th century. Today, draft horses are kept around as a luxury good, a sport, or a curiosity. It bodes ill.

Blogger Critias October 29, 2020 6:04 PM  

@23 "The Roman Church has gotten a lot right, down through the centuries."

Because it's the only Church founded by God.

Blogger tublecane October 29, 2020 6:12 PM  

@Dire Badger- Of course, “man is a social animal” is a bastardization of Aristotle’s “man is a political animal.” Which is a different claim, and may also be false but would be false in a different way.

Blogger AbnEng October 29, 2020 7:45 PM  


The glass is full. Half the glass is full of water, the other half is full of air.

Blogger xevious2030 October 29, 2020 9:48 PM  

“there's literally no purpose for a growing majority of people,” combined with “How's that going to work, a world of moochers and parasites.”
Not Promethean:
“and decide who is worthy? Thanks but no thanks”

The false assumption is that industrial civilization for the bulk of humanity is in any of the cards of any of the big players decks, that it is an outcome. That every transient human being has a purpose. That they are all special boys. That’s not how the story goes.

Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 29, 2020 11:15 PM  

@29 It's not a bastardization at all, it's a more accurate translation of what The Philosopher said.

The original quote is from Aristotle's Politics, which was of course written in Ancient Greek. He didn't call man a "political animal" or a "social animal." He called man a "zoon politikon", which literally translates to "city-dwelling living organism" or "living organism which exists in society". "Polis" is the Greek word for city.

The word "political" in contemporary usage makes one think of partisan politics, skullduggery, electioneering, and so on, and none of that was implied in Aristotle's use of zoon politikon.

For that reason, a lot of recent literature uses "social animal". See e.g. Political participation and Eudaimonia in Aristotle's Politics, History of Political Thought, Volume 19, Number 1, 1 January 1998, pp. 21-34, explaining that "political animal" is a bad translation and that "social animal" better matches Aristotle's meaning.

A similar phenomenon has occurred with the Ancient Greek word "eudaimonia", which used to be translated as "happiness". But since happiness nowadays has different connotations, more recent literature uses "wellbeing" or "flourishing", which is closer to the Ancient Greek meaning.

You tend to see the older translations appear on the web a lot simply because those are the ones in the public domain.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 30, 2020 12:52 AM  

"Because it's the only Church founded by God."

This claim is not even in accord with the Roman church's own particular dogma. At best it's a fragment of what was founded. The name "Catholic" is ironic and I'm sure Satan loves that.

Blogger Subtle Thumb October 30, 2020 6:58 AM  

It's turtles, all the way down: That's the only way to go. Except remove the ugly caricature, and say that it's an infinity of investigation and growth for ever and ever. You'll see pedosophers and pedosophists impulsively insult the second option in the trilemma, and that's a great indication that it is the one most worthy of our attention.

Blogger NobobyExpects October 30, 2020 8:23 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Because it's the only Church founded by God."

This claim is not even in accord with the Roman church's own particular dogma. At best it's a fragment of what was founded. The name "Catholic" is ironic and I'm sure Satan loves that.

Not true.

Blogger Mirko i Slavko October 30, 2020 8:39 AM  

All this talk is irrelevant.
The "system" is at a breaking point, and people feel it.
And this feeling is a prolonged anxiety that drives people crazy.
And for most people war is preferable than going crazy.

Anonymous Anonymous October 30, 2020 8:40 AM  

"The first step toward wisdom comes by calling things by their right names."

I'd call it a early outgrowth of wisdom (i.e. an effect not a cause) but I grok nonetheless.

As Owen Benjamin notes, the left are wizards, they like to think they can change reality by muttering the proper incantations, changing things by changing the meanings of words, and especially by never mentioning certain distasteful realities they think they can eliminate them.

Chris Locke used to have a blog which was subtitled something like "How Americans came to believe in Signs and Portents that would make the Middle Ages blush".


Blogger wreckage October 30, 2020 9:24 AM  

"In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers."
While it may in fact be an exclusionary creed you have linked to, it is not in its text explicitly exclusionary; therefore, assuming the text as presented completes the idea, it is absurd in the technical sense to use the text as support for the separate idea that the Roman is "the only church founded by God", since it would be a useless assertion; the text conflates any believer, with the church founded by God, with the Roman distinctive. Thereby all "churches" are founded by God, but there are no "churches" only "the church" hence there are none not founded by God simultaneous to there being only One founded by god; since all are the same that are of believers.

Blogger xevious2030 October 30, 2020 10:34 AM  

“And for most people war is preferable than going crazy.”

Blogger Hezekiah Garrett October 30, 2020 12:42 PM  

He's referring to we Orthodox. The Western Church does regard our Holy Mysteries, as well as our Apostolic Succession,to be valid, notwithstanding the existence of Sui Generis Eastern Catholic bodies.

It is logically incoherent to say that the East is and is not, The Church.

Of course, for our part, we just point to what the Western Church has become, and leave it there. Origen was venerated in the centuries immediately following his repose, but in light of what his errors wrought, this veneration waned significantly. With every passing decade, it becomes more and more difficult not to recognize that the Western Church has withered on the vine. I pray for our Latin brothers to return to the Christian faith, but in my lifetime, I have found no reason for my hope in current events.

-Formerly a Tridentine Catholic-

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 30, 2020 7:51 PM  

"Not true."

You should probably read your own catechism and note that the word "Catholic" appears precisely twice, in the titles at the top, and the word "roman" appears precisely once, in the references at the bottom.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts