Someone contacted me about a blog post I made. We talked on the phone. At one point they said something I thought was incorrect. So, I said, "You're wrong about that." Their response was not to engage the argument. Instead, they said that I hurt them by telling them they were wrong. At that point the discussion was not about logic and critical thinking and stating reasons that lead to a conclusion. There was no argument at all. Now, it was emotional. (This is Philip Rieff's "triumph of the therapeutic," instantiated; with a heaping spoonful of postmodern denial of objective truth.)
I had committed a microaggression. (To understand this, an excellent book is The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars, by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning.)
When I taught Philosophy at Monroe County Community College I would use words like 'right', 'wrong', 'true', 'false', 'correct', 'incorrect', and 'yes', 'no'. I never had a student say these words wounded them. And, sometimes, a student would point out an error in my thinking. When that happened, I would say, "You are right. I was wrong about that."
In my Philosophy of Religion classes I would begin by teaching Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (See here. For a variation on the argument that avoids Kant's criticism, see here.)
This argument is an exercise in logic. I first stated the argument, as follows.
1) I have an idea of a being a greater than which cannot be conceived.
2) Therefore, God exists.
I would write this argument on the white board. Then, I would ask the students, "How does statement 2 follow from statement 1?" A few students risked a response to this question. After each student response, I would say, "That's wrong." Or, "incorrect." Or, "false." I did not expect beginning philosophy students to understand this argument.
My goal was to teach them the argument. I wanted students to understand it. As understanding came to some of the students, I would tell them, "That's it! That's correct. You've got it!"
As a philosopher, I have engaged in countless discussions over matters of true/false, right/wrong, and good/bad. My experience in academic philosophy is that scholarly critical thinkers do not need to be coddled and pampered emotionally. What we want is truth. The philosophical quest is a quest for truth.
The same applies to the scientific quest.
But now... ahhh... the word from university professors is that students no longer go to school to learn, but to be made to feel better about themselves. They go to be emotionally "affirmed." Hence the concerns about micro-aggressions, the talk of “safe spaces” and “feeling threatened” when merely exposed to ideas with which one might disagree.
In the search for truth, the goal is not to affirm you, but to learn you.
Good Morning Redeemer Family!
 |
| (911 Museum, Ground Zero, New York City) |
Two years ago I purchased, on Amazon, Ryan T. Anderson's book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement. I'd already read two of Anderson's books. He's a good scholar (degrees from Princeton and Notre Dame), and an excellent writer.
But now, in the spirit of totalitarianism. Amazon has removed When Harry Became Sally. The moral outrage against Amazon has begun - see here.
Meanwhile, Amazon has not removed Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf. It's their #1 best seller in European political books. One wonders what sort of moral or amoral compass is Amazon navigating by?
"Amazon has yet to comment on its removal of Anderson’s book, which has received acclaim by scholars at institutions like Princeton University, Harvard University, and Oxford University. It was hailed by John Finnis of Oxford as a “focused, informative, fair-minded, lucid and fact-based guide to just and reasonable policies.”" (From here.)
You can purchase Anderson's book at Barnes and Noble where, I understand, it is selling well.
My constant expectation is that God will do things, with me, and through me, that far exceed my limited natural abilities.
How will this happen? What such transcendent expectations?
Because my focus is not on such things happening, but on living a connected life to Jesus. Jesus told his disciples that as they stay connected to him, their lives will bear much fruit.
God has clearly told me, "John, do not try to make supernatural things happen. Rather, abide in Me, and I will make them happen."
Some things like this happened yesterday, of which I cannot now share. If you were there, you know what I mean. God multiplied himself in our midst.
Dallas Willard writes,
"A life with effects beyond the natural (flesh) always depends upon intimate interactions between us and God, who is therefore present." (Willard, Hearing God Through the Year: A 365-Day Devotional, p. 61)
***
My two books are...
Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God
During Covid time I re-read Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, and Camus's The Plague.
The first two, especially, are about totalitarianism and the battle to control language. (I write about this battle, and how to overcome it, in my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.)
Yesterday I picked up Rod Dreher's recent book on the invasion of "soft totalitarianism" (Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents) As you read Dreher's description of totalitarianism, think of America, and the Church.
"A totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology. A totalitarian state is one that aspires to nothing less than defining and controlling reality. Truth is whatever the rulers decide it is. As Arendt has written, wherever totalitarianism has ruled, “[I]t has begun to destroy the essence of man.”
As part of its quest to define reality, a totalitarian state seeks not just to control your actions but also your thoughts and emotions. The ideal subject of a totalitarian totalitarian state is someone who has learned to love Big Brother.
Back in the Soviet era, totalitarianism demanded love for the Party, and compliance with the Party’s demands was enforced by the state. Today’s totalitarianism demands allegiance to a set of progressive beliefs, many of which are incompatible with logic—and certainly with Christianity. Compliance is forced less by the state than by elites who form public opinion, and by private corporations that, thanks to technology, control our lives far more than we would like to admit." (P. 8)
Feb. 22, 2021
