J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly stated that he wanted to create a new mythology for the English because their native mythology was so incomplete. He failed to realize that his beloved Christianity was the primary cause of the destruction of native English mythology.
Early evangelists destroyed sacred trees to prove the impotence of the pagan gods. They deliberately built churches on top of ancient temples. They turned the sylvan elves into demons and devils.
Christians succeeded in demythologizing the world and we have the environmental scars to prove it.
Scapegoat Logic
Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins. They believe that when the Romans publicly tortured and executed him, his innocent blood washed away the stain of sin. Paul states that sin came into the world by one man (Adam) and left through another one man (Jesus).
This is the logic of a scapegoat. A group of evil people will atone for their evilness by putting all of their evilness into an innocent creature and then publicly torturing and killing it. In scapegoat logic, performing an evil act is not evil.
Heraclitus wrote 2,500 years ago: "They vainly purify themselves with blood when defiled with it, as if a man who had stepped into mud were to wash it off with mud. He would be thought mad if anyone noticed him acting thus." (Richard D. McKirahan, translator)
Consider an analogy. Suppose that a violent street gang wanted to clean up. Instead of, say, giving themselves up to the police and accepting their punishment, let us suppose that they followed scapegoat logic. This street gang would publicly torture and kill an innocent person and claim to be cleaned of their wicked ways.
I will never understand scapegoat logic. I will never understand why otherwise intelligent people proudly carry the symbol of the public torture and death of an innocent man.
This is the logic of a scapegoat. A group of evil people will atone for their evilness by putting all of their evilness into an innocent creature and then publicly torturing and killing it. In scapegoat logic, performing an evil act is not evil.
Heraclitus wrote 2,500 years ago: "They vainly purify themselves with blood when defiled with it, as if a man who had stepped into mud were to wash it off with mud. He would be thought mad if anyone noticed him acting thus." (Richard D. McKirahan, translator)
Consider an analogy. Suppose that a violent street gang wanted to clean up. Instead of, say, giving themselves up to the police and accepting their punishment, let us suppose that they followed scapegoat logic. This street gang would publicly torture and kill an innocent person and claim to be cleaned of their wicked ways.
I will never understand scapegoat logic. I will never understand why otherwise intelligent people proudly carry the symbol of the public torture and death of an innocent man.
Rorty and his critics
Rorty recognizes particular contingencies and enjoys writing that our traditions did not have to be this particular way. He loves individual idiosyncrasies.
His critics generally argue that Rorty is missing the role of general necessities. Rorty often implies that since things could have been otherwise, then everything goes. He fails to see that we can't have just anything go since not everything will go. There are general constraints on what memes we use.
His critics generally argue that Rorty is missing the role of general necessities. Rorty often implies that since things could have been otherwise, then everything goes. He fails to see that we can't have just anything go since not everything will go. There are general constraints on what memes we use.
General Necessities and Particular Contingencies
The Joy of Cooking is now over 75 years old. It was originally written by a widow in her 50's who was reacting to the lack of a pragmatic cookbook on the market. It grew into a large enterprise with historical eccentricities that helped make it unique. This history inspires loyalty.
But if it had never been, there would have been something else that filled its place with different idiosyncrasies. As long as this other possible cookbook was useful, the uniqueness of it would have inspired loyalty.
There are general necessities that could have been filled by any cookbook. The Joy of Cooking happened to be the one to fill that general meme niche with its particular contingencies; but it easily could have been another cookbook to satisfy this general necessity with different particular contingencies.
Holy Books are the same way. There is a general necessity, a meme niche, that is filled by magic books. The particular contingencies, the unique idiosyncrasies, of these books could have been otherwise.
Another example: there is a general need for measuring time, but the particularly weird method we use didn't have to be this way -- we could easily be using a base 10 numbering system for time rather than base 60. We need to measure time (general necessity or meme niche) but we don't have to measure time in this way (particular contingencies).
It is wrong to think that our method of measuring time must be this way. It is wrong to think that a cookbook must have been written this way. It is wrong to think that the Bible must have been written this way. Something else with different particular contingencies could have filled that general necessity just as easily.
But if it had never been, there would have been something else that filled its place with different idiosyncrasies. As long as this other possible cookbook was useful, the uniqueness of it would have inspired loyalty.
There are general necessities that could have been filled by any cookbook. The Joy of Cooking happened to be the one to fill that general meme niche with its particular contingencies; but it easily could have been another cookbook to satisfy this general necessity with different particular contingencies.
Holy Books are the same way. There is a general necessity, a meme niche, that is filled by magic books. The particular contingencies, the unique idiosyncrasies, of these books could have been otherwise.
Another example: there is a general need for measuring time, but the particularly weird method we use didn't have to be this way -- we could easily be using a base 10 numbering system for time rather than base 60. We need to measure time (general necessity or meme niche) but we don't have to measure time in this way (particular contingencies).
It is wrong to think that our method of measuring time must be this way. It is wrong to think that a cookbook must have been written this way. It is wrong to think that the Bible must have been written this way. Something else with different particular contingencies could have filled that general necessity just as easily.
Progress and Old Truth
Conservatives believe that they have the truth -- why else would they be conservatives? They want to hold onto their correct way of thinking and they oppose changing their way of thinking.
George Washington was a great soldier, statesman, and president. But he didn't know that washing your hands killed deadly germs. Doctors at the time killed Washington using leeches to suck out disease. Washington didn't even have aspirin. There are many many important things that George Washington didn't know.
It is just foolish to believe that any past figure had the truth and that the best thing we should do is hold onto it. It is incredible to consider that some people will reject the latest scientific research simply because a story was written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads who claimed to hear God's voice
George Washington was a great soldier, statesman, and president. But he didn't know that washing your hands killed deadly germs. Doctors at the time killed Washington using leeches to suck out disease. Washington didn't even have aspirin. There are many many important things that George Washington didn't know.
It is just foolish to believe that any past figure had the truth and that the best thing we should do is hold onto it. It is incredible to consider that some people will reject the latest scientific research simply because a story was written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads who claimed to hear God's voice
Immoderate Moderates
Claiming to be a "moderate" is a sly way to call your opponent a radical.
"I am a moderate" means "I speak the truth and you are a raving lunatic."
"I am a moderate" means "I speak the truth and you are a raving lunatic."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
