Nice one. I especially like the "Know thyself, know western history". I agree that the self IS ones history. (See http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-dogmas-of-liberalism-or-how-to-win.html )
It seems to me though that perhaps the most important difference between liberals and traditionalists isn't whether we should feed our appetites or pursue self-control, it is whether culture is a impediment to the freedom of the self, or whether freedom is the result of Western culture. Obviously you and I take the latter position, but liberals (what I call Personas) take the former. Thus they believe that culture is something to be resisted and no culture should be favored over another. So I don't see the liberal/traditionalist divide being resolved until the liberal understanding of the self, culture, and rights is supplanted. But then it won't be resolved by coming together in a synthesis as you hope, there will be a new understanding taking the place of the liberal order.
Well you did a fine job of getting your put across, I'll give you that. Off course I think we can safely say that some issues in the culture war will never be fully resolved. Some of them have been fought over pretty much since the dawn of western civilization in ancient Greece.
I truly have no idea where the personas are to find meaning or values outside of societal roles. It is very interesting. I agree that it won't happen until the idea of self becomes embedded in western culture. I don't see why you consider this nearly impossible.
By the way, your sentence "whether culture is an impediment to the freedom of the self, or whether freedom is the result of Western culture" beautifully encapsulates the difference you see to illuminate. Nicely distilled!
DAMIEN,
I think you're right. But in a democracy we do not necessarily need resolution. What I'd hope for - perhaps fantastically - is an agreement on general principles of responsibility for the West.
For these issues to be resolved, a point I made in another video needs resolution. We need to drop the idea of absolutes. In gay rights, the idea that we disregard democracy to enforce rights is destructive. Absolute rights are destructive in school policy. In terms of abortion, compromise requires the acceptance of the doctrine of "state interest" and willingness to accept the dictates of democracy from the right.
But, yes, it is currently hard to get these sides together. If at least we could agree that our rights need to be seen as requiring a healthy culture and country and agree to use democracy, we at least would have good ground rules for healthy debate.
Regarding rights, and democracy you talked about rights in an earlier video. You said you thought, that the court should not overrule the will of the people, unless there were serious abuses. What would be a serious abuse in your opinion? Also what if the will of the people goes against something in the constitution and they vote for an unconstitutional law, without going through the amendment process? You know the founding fathers created the constitution to protect the rights of minorities as well as the majority?
I'm not a lawyer, but that is a good question. I would first say that that would be something for courts to decide.
That said, you have obvious ones, laws to kill people you don't like. But still obvious, but requiring asterisks and debate, you cannot get ride of Constitutional guarantees. So "due process" cannot be voted or legislated away. Also, women's right to vote cannot be denied. Police need warrants to enter your home. Basically. the Constitution creates a bedrock you cannot go below.
That does not mean that only things specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected, but they must be. Beyond that, if we have to err on the side of judicial meddling or democracy, I would err on the side of democracy. It provides flexibility and a reason for people to get involved with their political system.
I try to walk the middle of the road for uniting purposes. But I do agree with Scalia that the more the government does, the less room there is for the legislature and democracy. And, since Scalia is from Queens or Brooklyn, I'll cut him some extra praise.
I don't recall the article. Was it about an appointee saying Sharia is no problem? If not that then I don't recall. Thanks for sending it and my apologies for the tardy replies and not responding to the article immediately.
Yeah, that's the one, it was an article from the "Jihad Watch" and "Infidel Bloggers Alliance" about a man named Harold Koh, who said that he thought foreign law should apply to American court cases and he supposedly said that in some cases Sharia law could be used in US courts. I thought it might be of some concern to you.
Here's more about Koh, who Obama wants to be one of the State Department's top lawyers. Its an article from Fox News.com, where Glen Beck Interviews Jay Sekulow (chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice) about the guy, if your interested.
I am obviously very interested in this topic. This man not knowing why Sharia law is a bad fit shows a scary lack of culturist awareness. Are these folks just uneducated or complicit?
I also should be more topical in my writing. Most articles are about something that happened in the last 24 hours. And this is good and bad. But, I believe it is more popular. People do not often see what general principles have to do with situations.
I've been tired these days. Years of culturism gone . . . ? But I am still writing once a week and will read the article you sent. I should of commented on it or written about immediately, but grad school really distracts and grinds one down.
Your welcome. I'm glad you are interested. I don't know, if Obama and Koh are uneducated or complicit, of the two, I hope they are just uneducated about the subject of Sharia. Or it could be that they think that Islamic fundamentalists can be appeased. But I really hope they are just uneducated. However, that's not the only thing about Koh, I find troubling. He thinks that its okay for the courts to use foreign law to interpret and overturn US law. That too, is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.
Looking forward to reading your future posts. If you want you could be more topical in your writing but its up to you. Do whatever you think is best.
12 comments:
Nice one. I especially like the "Know thyself, know western history". I agree that the self IS ones history. (See http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-dogmas-of-liberalism-or-how-to-win.html )
It seems to me though that perhaps the most important difference between liberals and traditionalists isn't whether we should feed our appetites or pursue self-control, it is whether culture is a impediment to the freedom of the self, or whether freedom is the result of Western culture. Obviously you and I take the latter position, but liberals (what I call Personas) take the former. Thus they believe that culture is something to be resisted and no culture should be favored over another. So I don't see the liberal/traditionalist divide being resolved until the liberal understanding of the self, culture, and rights is supplanted. But then it won't be resolved by coming together in a synthesis as you hope, there will be a new understanding taking the place of the liberal order.
Culturist John,
Well you did a fine job of getting your put across, I'll give you that. Off course I think we can safely say that some issues in the culture war will never be fully resolved. Some of them have been fought over pretty much since the dawn of western civilization in ancient Greece.
Empedocles,
I truly have no idea where the personas are to find meaning or values outside of societal roles. It is very interesting. I agree that it won't happen until the idea of self becomes embedded in western culture. I don't see why you consider this nearly impossible.
By the way, your sentence "whether culture is an impediment to the freedom of the self, or whether freedom is the result of Western culture" beautifully encapsulates the difference you see to illuminate. Nicely distilled!
DAMIEN,
I think you're right. But in a democracy we do not necessarily need resolution. What I'd hope for - perhaps fantastically - is an agreement on general principles of responsibility for the West.
For these issues to be resolved, a point I made in another video needs resolution. We need to drop the idea of absolutes. In gay rights, the idea that we disregard democracy to enforce rights is destructive. Absolute rights are destructive in school policy. In terms of abortion, compromise requires the acceptance of the doctrine of "state interest" and willingness to accept the dictates of democracy from the right.
But, yes, it is currently hard to get these sides together. If at least we could agree that our rights need to be seen as requiring a healthy culture and country and agree to use democracy, we at least would have good ground rules for healthy debate.
THANKS for the comments my friends!!
Culturist John,
Regarding rights, and democracy you talked about rights in an earlier video. You said you thought, that the court should not overrule the will of the people, unless there were serious abuses. What would be a serious abuse in your opinion? Also what if the will of the people goes against something in the constitution and they vote for an unconstitutional law, without going through the amendment process? You know the founding fathers created the constitution to protect the rights of minorities as well as the majority?
Also what if the majority supports rights we can't afford?
Damien,
I'm not a lawyer, but that is a good question. I would first say that that would be something for courts to decide.
That said, you have obvious ones, laws to kill people you don't like. But still obvious, but requiring asterisks and debate, you cannot get ride of Constitutional guarantees. So "due process" cannot be voted or legislated away. Also, women's right to vote cannot be denied. Police need warrants to enter your home. Basically. the Constitution creates a bedrock you cannot go below.
That does not mean that only things specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected, but they must be. Beyond that, if we have to err on the side of judicial meddling or democracy, I would err on the side of democracy. It provides flexibility and a reason for people to get involved with their political system.
Thanks for the good question!!
Culturist John,
So if I'm understanding you correctly your judicial philosophy is similar to Anton_Scalia's. He's a man I've admired for a long time.
By the way, speaking of the law, did you get my last email, it was about an obama appointee.
Damien,
I try to walk the middle of the road for uniting purposes. But I do agree with Scalia that the more the government does, the less room there is for the legislature and democracy. And, since Scalia is from Queens or Brooklyn, I'll cut him some extra praise.
I don't recall the article. Was it about an appointee saying Sharia is no problem? If not that then I don't recall. Thanks for sending it and my apologies for the tardy replies and not responding to the article immediately.
Thanks, John
Culturist John,
Yeah, that's the one, it was an article from the "Jihad Watch" and "Infidel Bloggers Alliance" about a man named Harold Koh, who said that he thought foreign law should apply to American court cases and he supposedly said that in some cases Sharia law could be used in US courts. I thought it might be of some concern to you.
Here's more about Koh, who Obama wants to be one of the State Department's top lawyers. Its an article from Fox News.com, where Glen Beck Interviews Jay Sekulow (chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice) about the guy, if your interested.
I am obviously very interested in this topic. This man not knowing why Sharia law is a bad fit shows a scary lack of culturist awareness. Are these folks just uneducated or complicit?
I also should be more topical in my writing. Most articles are about something that happened in the last 24 hours. And this is good and bad. But, I believe it is more popular. People do not often see what general principles have to do with situations.
I've been tired these days. Years of culturism gone . . . ? But I am still writing once a week and will read the article you sent. I should of commented on it or written about immediately, but grad school really distracts and grinds one down.
THANKS!!!!
Culturist John,
Your welcome. I'm glad you are interested. I don't know, if Obama and Koh are uneducated or complicit, of the two, I hope they are just uneducated about the subject of Sharia. Or it could be that they think that Islamic fundamentalists can be appeased. But I really hope they are just uneducated. However, that's not the only thing about Koh, I find troubling. He thinks that its okay for the courts to use foreign law to interpret and overturn US law. That too, is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.
Looking forward to reading your future posts. If you want you could be more topical in your writing but its up to you. Do whatever you think is best.
Post a Comment