Nok the Areopagite

The blog where Nok talks about philosophy, religion, language, and other points of interest.

[tehredblur]

The greatest recent event—that “Atheism is dead,” that the rejection of the gods has ceased to be believable—is even now beginning to cast…

I also blog on Medium, for anyone who is interested.

[tehredblur]

If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong.  The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.  All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become.  They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self.  The Diabolical self is the worse of the two.  That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.  But, of course, it is better to be neither.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[tehredblur]

Atheism is a monstrous evil in those who govern; and also in learned men even if their lives are innocent, because from their studies they can affect those who hold office; and that, even if not as baleful as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue...Unphilosophical mathematicians have rejected final causes, but true philosophers accept them; and as a well-known author has said, a catechism announces God to children, and Newton demonstrates Him to wise men.

Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764

[tehredblur]

Voltaire, Rousseau, Gibbon, Hume charge the spiritually Religious with hypocrisy; but how a Monk, or a Methodist either, can be a hypocrite, I cannot conceive. We are Men of like passions with others, and pretend not to be holier than others; therefore, when a Religious Man falls into sin, he ought not to be call’d a hypocrite: this title is more properly to be given to a player who falls into sin, whose profession is virtue and morality, and the making men self-righteous. Foote, in calling Whitefield hypocrite, was himself one; for Whitefield pretended not to be holier than others, but confessed his sins before all the world. Voltaire! Rousseau! you cannot escape my charge that you are Pharisees and hypocrites; for you are constantly talking of the virtues of the human heart, and particularly of your own; that you may accuse others, and especially the Religious, whose errors you, by this display of pretended virtue, chiefly design to expose. Rousseau thought Men good by nature: he found them evil, and found no friend. Friendship cannot exist without Forgiveness of Sins continually. The book written by Rousseau, call’d his Confessions, is an apology and cloak for his sin, and not a confession.

William Blake

[tehredblur]

Never say of anything, 'I have lost it', but say, 'I gave it back'. Has your child died? It was given back. Has your wife died? She was given back. Has your estate been taken from you? Was not this also given back? But you say, 'He who took it from me is wicked'. What does it matter to you through whom the Giver asked it back? As long as He gives it you, take care of it, but not as your own; treat it as passers-by treat an inn.

The Manual of Epictetus

[tehredblur]

Anger is a seething of the blood about the heart caused by the fuming up for thickening of the bile. For this reason, it is also called bile or spleen. There is also a kind of anger which is a desire for revenge, for when we are wronged or think that we have been wronged, we are pained and there arises in us that combined feeling of desire and anger. There are three kinds of anger; namely, wrath (which is called bile and spleen), rancor, and vindictiveness. When anger arises and starts to move, it is called wrath, bile, and spleen. Rancor is an enduring wrath, or bearing malice. It is called μῆνις, from its μένειν, or remaining, and being impressed upon the memory. Vindictiveness is wrath on the watch for an opportunity for revenge. It is called κότος from κεῖσθαι, or being laid down. Anger is the spearmen of the reason and the avenger of desire. Thus, when we desire a thing and are thwarted by someone, our reason desires that for such as would maintain their own natural position this occurrence is worthy of vexation, and we get angry at him over having been wronged.

St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 16

[tehredblur]

Well then, there had been three principal opinions held among the pagan philosophers regarding the sovereign good and the end of our actions: namely, that of Epicurus, who said it was pleasure; that of Zeno, who would have it to be virture; and that of Aristotle, who had composed it from all sorts of perfections, as much from perfections of the body as of the mind. These three opinions can, it seems to me, be received as true and as in mutual accord, provided one interprets them favorably.

René Descartes, in a letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, 1645

[tehredblur]

Thus, Philosophy as a whole is like a tree; of which the roots are Metaphysics, the trunk is Physics, and the branches emerging from this trunk are all the other branches of knowledge. These branches can be reduced to three principal ones, namely, Medicine, Mechanics, and Ethics (by which I mean the highest and most perfect Ethics, which presupposes a complete knowledge of the other branches of knowledge and is the final stage of Wisdom).

René Descartes, in a letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, 1644

A bit mechanistic in his approach, but overall, not bad, Descartes.

[tehredblur]

Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. 'For thy foot,' it is said, 'will not stumble, if thou refer to what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence.' For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring 'the Hellenic mind,' as the law, the Hebrews, 'to Christ.' Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I, Chapter V

[tehredblur]

Ancient Anime Philosophers

Thales: タレス (Taresu)

Pythagoras: ピタゴラス (Pitagorasu)

Protagoras: プロタゴラス (Purotagorasu)

Socrates: ソクラテス (Sokuratesu)

Plato: プラトン (Puraton)

Aristotle: アリストテレス (Arisutoteresu)

Epicurus: エピクロス (Epikurosu)

Lucretius: ルクレティウス (Rukuretiusu)

Epictetus: エピクテトス (Epikutetosu)

Marcus Aurelius: マルクス・アウレリウス (Marukusu Aureriusu)

Phyrro: ピュロン (Pyuron)

Justin Martyr: ユスティノス (Yusutinosu)

Clement of Alexandria: アレクサンドリアのクレメンス (Arekusandoria no Kuremensu)

[tehredblur]

When I began teaching for the English Faculty, I made two other friends, both Christians (these queer people seemed now to pop up on every side) who were later to give me much help in getting over the last stile. They were HVV Dyson ... and JRR Tolkien. Friendship with the latter marked the breakdown of two old prejudices. At my first coming into the world I had been (implicitly) warned never to trust a Papist, and at my first coming into the English Faculty (explicitly) never to trust a philologist. Tolkien was both.

C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy

[tehredblur]

The word 'hypostasis' has two meanings. Thus, when used in the strict sense it means substance simply. However, the hypostasis subsisting in itself means the individual and the distinct person. 'Enhypostaton,' or what has real existence, has two meanings also. Thus, it may mean being in the strict sense. In this sense we not only call substance in the strict sense enhypostatic but the accident, also. And it also means the hypostasis itself, that is to say, the individual. 'Anhypostaton,' or what has not real existence, is also used in two senses. Thus, that which has absolutely no existence at all is called anhypostaton, and the accident is also so called, because it does not subsist in itself but in the substance.... ...sometimes [hypostasis] means simple existence. In this sense, substance and hypostasis are the same thing, which is why certain of the holy Fathers have said: 'the natures, that is to stay, hypostases.'† At other times, it means the existence of an individual substance in itself. In this sense, it signifies the individual, that which is numerically different, which is to say, Peter and Paul, or that certain horse. "Now, one should know that substance which is devoid of form does not subsist of itself, nor does an essential difference, nor a species, nor an accident. It is only the hypostases, the individuals, that is, that subsist of themselves, and in them are found both the substance and the essential differences, the species and the accidents. The simple substance, moreover, is found in the same manner in all hypostases: in inanimate and animate substances, in rational and irrational, in mortal and immortal. The essential differences, however, are one thing in inanimate substances and another in animate, one thing in rational and another in irrational, and, similarly, one thing in mortal and another in immortal. To put it simply, with the hypostases belonging to each most specific species, the same essential differences connect them one to another by reason of their substance, but they separate them from the hypostases of of another species. In the same way, the accidents in these, that is, in the hypostases, are considered as separating each hypostasis from the other hypostases of the same species. For this reason the term hypostasis has been properly applied to the individual, since in the hypostasis the substance, to which the accidents have been added, actually subsists (ὑφίσταται).

Saint John of Damascus, Philosophical Chapters

†Here, Damascene quotes Cyril of Alexandria's Reply to Theodoret

[tehredblur]

1) If property rights are not legitimate, then people have no right to their own bodies

2) People do have right to their own bodies

3) Therefore, property rights are legitimate

[tehredblur]

God loves you today.

He loved you yesterday.

He will love you tomorrow.

[tehredblur]

I don't want statues torn down primarily because I think statues are cool.

I don't really care who is portrayed by the statue. It can be a statue of Jesus or Stalin. Doesn't matter to me.

But let's not lie and say that the people currently tearing down statues are motivated by virtue. They aren't. They don't want to erase history. They want to revise history. The revision is not in the tearing down of the statue. The revision is in rewriting the subject's history in order to JUSTIFY tearing it down, making post hoc moral judgments about the subject's character in a different time period, different culture, and different theory of ethics from the one the subject was born into through no fault of his own.

You cannot pretend that only statues of "bad people" are being torn down, because good people don't exist. If you're tearing down statues of bad people, you'd be left with no statues at all. You mean to tell me West Africans can't have a statue of Mansa Musa? He owned slaves and devastated the Alexandrian economy. Indians can't have a statue of Gandhi? He is responsible for the partitioning of Pakistan, resulting in over half a million deaths. Museums can't have statues of Caesar? He committed genocide and sold entire ethnic groups into slavery.

Should we tell the Mongolians to tear down their statues of Ghengis Khan? We don't even have a number for how many women he raped. Should we demand that the Russians tear down their statues of Peter the Great? He was responsible for the brutal torture and execution of the Streltsy. What about removing statues of Walt Disney? Under his administration, Disney perpetuated the racist depictions of Africans. The Disney company has already elected to memoryhole The Song of the South, which Walt Disney produced himself!

Being selective with the statues being torn down based on the thin excuse of virtue is just self-serving hypocrisy. It's the opposite of good. It's vicious. It demonstrates a severe deficiency of character on the part of the vandals. They pretend to be good in order to glorify themselves to their peers as moral exemplars, all the while their souls are rotten and putrid, festering in their own hubris.

Tear them all down or tear none of them down. That is the only way to be consistent. Anything else is a tacit admission of a serious deficiency of character.

[luntfontanne]

Racism is integrally linked to capitalism. And I think it’s a mistake to assume that we can combat racism by leaving capitalism in place. As Cedric Robinson pointed out in his book Black Marxism, capitalism is racial capitalism. And, of course, to just say for a moment, that Marx pointed out that what he called primitive accumulation, capital doesn’t just appear from nowhere. The original capital was provided by the labor of slaves. The Industrial Revolution, which pivoted around the production of capital, was enabled by slave labor in the U.S. So, I am convinced that the ultimate eradication of racism is going to require us to move toward a more socialist organization of our economies, of our other institutions. I think we have a long way to go before we can begin to talk about an economic system that is not based on exploitation and on the super-exploitation of Black people, Latinx people and other racialized populations.

Angela Davis, interview with Democracy Now! (June 12, 2020)

This entire contention begs the question on race. It cannot go unnoticed that is only people who are philosophically opposed to capitalism who think that capitalism is inherently racist. Talk to any university scholar holding an academic position in the field of economics and they will tell you that is nonsense. I can think to two black economists just off the top of my head—Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams—who have argued precisely the opposite: that capitalism will help to remove racial inequality in America.

The contention that the industrial revolution was enabled by slave labor in the United States is just absurd. The industrial revolution took place in the slaveless north, whereas the South remained stubbornly agrarian and resisted technological progress, and they resisted it precisely because it would disrupt their slave-driven economy. There was no impetus to own a slave to do work that could be done by a machine which was cheaper to purchase and maintain than a human slave. The only exception I can think of is the cotton gin, which increased slavery in the south by increasing the demand for cotton since it could be processed more quickly, but overall, the industrial revolution did not come to the South until after slavery was abolished.

The problem with Marxism is that it requires oppression to survive. When you divide society into two categories—one being The Oppressors and the other being The Oppressed—you logically and necessarily fall into one of those two categories. Therefore, on Marxism, the ultimate goal is for you yourself to become a member of the Oppressor class.

And that’s not even to get started on Marx’s own racism. All you need to do is read his work Das Kapital to see the ugly racism this man espoused. Or just look at this letter to Friedrich Engels:

It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.

Marx was also an anti-Semite. Consider what Marx had to say about the Jews in his essay On the Jewish Question:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Why anyone would want to peddle the economic nonsense of a Jew-hating, anti-Black, spoiled brat who never worked a day in his life is beyond me. Marx was a member of the very bourgeois class that he claimed to despise. He considered black people to be beneath him, and thought so little of Jews that he considered all of them to be money-worshipping atheists.

Marxism is racist, absurd, and evil, and it must be resisted at every point. Marxism will breed further racism. Capitalism, if we allow it, will destroy it.

[tehredblur]

I decided to make a new cover photo for my Facebook profile.