Where did I go wrong!!!!

[aliantha]

Anyway, I don't have a problem with him because I don't think he's smart. I just think he's wrong. About nearly everything I've read so far. Mozart was the greatest natural talent of music that we know of. No musical feat was beyond him. His memory; his ear; his ability to compose huge pieces in his head, start to finish, then write them down perfectly at a later date... But I don't much care for his music. Kinda bland imo. Bach and Beethoven, otoh... Other people feel the opposite.

Bach:
Mozart: Good, but he's been kinda done to death these days.
Beethoven: Meh. Not big on the Romantics as a general rule.
F.J. Haydn:

As for the topic of difficult ideas presented in an easy-to-understand way: I spent 20 years boiling down difficult topics into 20-second radio stories, and got numerous compliments from my sources for my ability to explain their information so succinctly and so well. So, sorry, guys, but I don't see a correlation between the difficulty of the idea being presented and the intelligence of the presenter; the correlation *I* see is between the impenetrability of the prose and the speaker's/author's ability to express him/herself clearly and/or attempts at obfuscation.

That's not to say that I'm accusing GKC of either a lack of clarity or of trying to sell anyone a bill of goods (altho... ). He writes pretty clearly for a Victorian -- which is what makes him hard to read today.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Well, I was trying to read a biology paper one time and I had trouble understanding it. So I think the person who wrote it wasn't very intelligent.

Also, you know what? Most theoretical physicists would make terrible presidents. Because a lot of them are abstract thinkers and terrrrible communicators. This is because they lack intellect, right?

Isn't this a case of apples and oranges?

Being able to explain complex things in clear, simple ways is a great skill set, and not all smart people can do it. =) (cool RE the radio broadcasts, ali! 20 years??? Subjects?)

But just because someone lacks it does not mean they don't understand things that are HARD to explain.

[rusmeister]

I was just saying.


Anyway, I don't have a problem with him because I don't think he's smart. I just think he's wrong. About nearly everything I've read so far. Mozart was the greatest natural talent of music that we know of. No musical feat was beyond him. His memory; his ear; his ability to compose huge pieces in his head, start to finish, then write them down perfectly at a later date... But I don't much care for his music. Kinda bland imo. Bach and Beethoven, otoh... Other people feel the opposite.

I've listed two things he was completely right on in the predictions department alone - on the fact that divorce and abortion would become, not rare, as the proponents of the facilitation of those things predicted, but commonplace - that the human ego likes to see itself as exceptional, and so when you tell people that "Only big exceptions may/should do this" that people will do it in droves, because we generally DO see our own case/life/etc as exceptional. It is a fact that both of those things are commonplace. It is not 'my opinion' but really true and verifiable. He was also right on eugenics, as I said. Ditto. He was nearly the ONLY person who was right. Practically the entire intellectual world was advocating it; most voices against it were from a tiny minority in what you would call 'the religious right', and you would have a much harder time producing any rational (non-religious) arguments against it from the first part of the twentieth century, but more advocacy for it than you can shake a stick at. He was objectively right on so many things that it looks silly to say "He was wrong on so many things" - which is the unsupported assertion.

Let me give you an example where I will state a factual error of my own while still saying the heart of the truth: He said fifty thousand things (a technical error); 245 of which (whoops - there goes another one!) were wrong. But the other 49,000+ things that were right are what matter, and that is the heart of the truth.

On what you've read so far, which is not much, AFAIK... As I recall, you didn't even get far in "The Everlasting Man".
You say he "was wrong on nearly everything and then refuse to say the first thing that he was wrong on. That is not argument. That is assertion and evasion. It supports, rather than casts doubt on Dale Ahlquist's asssertion (which is only assertion to the person who does not know GKC well) that "to argue with Chesterton is to lose." A staggering assertion to the unprepared modern, seemingly simply arrogant, but that doesn't matter. If his opponents will NOT engage the thoughts (and I mean in a manner that can be examined; ie, in public) but simply say he "was wrong" and then failing to name one place where he was wrong works in favor of Ahlquist's assertion, and not against it. The mere assertions without anything resembling refutation look to the public like evasion, even if the reasons for evasion are noble. (I say "the public" but I think enemies of the ideas would breathe a sigh of relief at NOT raising those questions and so would quietly accept the assertion that "he was wrong". But that is entirely unintellectual; in fact, it is anti-intellectual. It is what religious people who refuse to engage the ideas of Darwin and Freud (I'd say Marx, as well, but he's been completely discredited, although he was also a member of what had been the unholy trinity of the assault upon Christendom in the 19th and 20th centuries) are loudly accused of all the time.

You guys keep speaking of music and taste. That is irrelevant to the question of whether a thing is true or false, right or wrong. You cannot both say that he was wrong and that he is just "not your taste". It is one or the other. If it is a matter of "taste"(which is merely the self-contradictory idea that there IS no truth) then it cannot possibly be wrong. But neither, then, can we possibly talk about anything at all, for nothing is true. If He is wrong, then show how, objectively. Ali said she counted some 80-odd factual errors. I think there may be a few, certainly less than 80, and that that does not touch the heart of the thesis AT ALL. Fist has said that he was wrong on nearly everything, and then fails to name the first point in his thesis where he was wrong (and again, how the alleged error invalidates the thesis.

So I'll say it: To argue with Chesterton is to lose, and no one here has defeated Chesterton - shown him to be wrong. They've only said it without showing it.

But I wouldn't want to end things there. I think there is so much of that kindly, jolly, avuncular (to use Ali's appropriate word), considerate, deeply intelligent man that is wonderful, that calls us to hope, to joy, to imagination, that saying, "Yuck, I don't like his apologetics" and therefore I refuse to read anything of the man" is self-deprivation on the level of not liking Shakespeare's sonnets, and therefore refusing to read his plays. It's a staggering form of self-despite.

[Fist and Faith]

I know Chesterton is wrong on many things, even if he's right on those two things. I've brought up times he's wrong when I've read various things of his. You disagree. Just because you think he's right doesn't mean he's right.

And he's not as right as you want to believe he is on even those two things. How data is interpreted and presented plays a big role in such things. Nor do I think fewer divorces necessarily means stronger families. There have always been terrible marriages. Abuse; affairs; living together as strangers... Putting on rosy glasses and pretending things were better, or holier, when fewer of those marriages ended is silly. And it won't fool anyone other than yourself.

The point about music and taste is that we have no way of knowing which of our worldviews is true or false, right or wrong. There's no objective verification. We each think we're right, and have found truth. Both of our worldviews have allowed many people to live happy, fully functional lives. I prefer my mindset and values, and you prefer yours. Just as I prefer Bach, and you prefer whoever it is you prefer. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, that's all it comes down to.

[rusmeister]

I know Chesterton is wrong on many things, even if he's right on those two things. I've brought up times he's wrong when I've read various things of his. You disagree. Just because you think he's right doesn't mean he's right.

And he's not as right as you want to believe he is on even those two things. How data is interpreted and presented plays a big role in such things. Nor do I think fewer divorces necessarily means stronger families. There have always been terrible marriages. Abuse; affairs; living together as strangers... Putting on rosy glasses and pretending things were better, or holier, when fewer of those marriages ended is silly. And it won't fool anyone other than yourself.

The point about music and taste is that we have no way of knowing which of our worldviews is true or false, right or wrong. There's no objective verification. We each think we're right, and have found truth. Both of our worldviews have allowed many people to live happy, fully functional lives. I prefer my mindset and values, and you prefer yours. Just as I prefer Bach, and you prefer whoever it is you prefer. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, that's all it comes down to.

I totally agree that you may prefer whatever you want. That does not clarify whether your position is based on truth or not. We very often prefer comforting lies to uncomfortable truths. I state again that if the nature of the universe actually WERE the way you or others paint it, I WOULD want to know that, because I am interested in truth, not preference or taste.

To briefly address your remarks:

You are mistaken about my view if you think I mean that that guarantees that the families held together by social pressure are necessarily happy - but they are certainly more stable.

If divorce is in fact socially frowned on, then it DOES mean stronger families, whether spouses even like each other or not, for the simple reason that they must remain unified (barring the conditions that have ALWAYS allowed divorce in our society - infidelity especially). Objectively.

Since it does mean that, it IS in fact objective and not matter of opinion.

Therefore, I know that the worldview that discourages divorce in practice as well as in theory to the point where it actually IS a rarity is right - for it DOES produce the stronger family. The kids might know that in the same number of cases as today, their parents may fight and sleep in separate beds, but they also know that they are part of a single family with a single mother and single father, and that this is not very likely to change, barring death, and so the children are, on the whole, guaranteed a much more stable childhood. (I'd dare you to poll kids and see how many of them wish their parents would get a divorce and one of them actually move away. I doubt you'd find even a dozen out of a million - and those would be kids in families that we would agree that divorce is inevitable - it would certainly be violence-filled homes, with kids in terror for their lives.)

You can talk about "data" and "statistics" (and I'll remind you of Mark Twain's comment on statistics) but that enormous fact remains actually true and not "my opinion".

That's why the point you have tried to make via music is completely invalid. It is not a matter of taste if it is a matter of fact. There IS truth, and where there IS truth, it is not "a matter of opinion". I won't argue taste in music or art (to reasonable degrees - I think those things can degrade under false worldviews and eventually produce orc-work) - but the things I speak of are not at all about matters of taste but about whether they are TRUE or not.

Anyway, MY main point - that your own position towards GKC validates Ahlquist's assertion that to argue with Chesterton is to lose - stands. You only offer assertion and no facts of any kind. I challenge you to show anywhere Chesterton is wrong in his theses - either TEM or TSOD will do, or any one you care to pick up. I allow for limited factual error that does not affect the theses one whit. As it stands, I have posted arguments that have never been refuted - only called "wrong" without argument, whereas I have repeatedly refuted - shown counter-argument - to practically everything you have ever posted. I submit that in an arena of public debate that makes my arguments the winners on the same basis that a defaulting player or team loses by refusing to take the field.

If you ever accept the challenge, I will, of course, agree to any necessary thread split as long as it is reasonable to all concerned.

And I do appreciate that you have engaged with something, even if it's just little ol' me. You could refuse to do even that, so I acknowledge the honor that you do me there.

I want to reply to Lina, too, and to folk - Ali, TF, and now Tenara, etc on the other thread - I just can't keep up with it all. My apologies to y'all, who may think I am ignoring you. I assure you that's not the case!

[Fist and Faith]

Divorce is socially frowned on? Not in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce.

And if something bad is encouraged, and ending it is frowned on, then it's not an objective truth. It's an objective wrong.

As always, I'm not going to debate Chesterton. I'm sure I will have things to say about his words when those words are used to support or refute specific points. I've done this often enough in the past. You always say he's right and I'm wrong. I always say I'm right and he's wrong. This about divorce is an example. It's wrong to insist people remain in bad, even terribly abusive, marriages. The society that insists on that has outlived its usefullness.

[rusmeister]

Divorce is socially frowned on? Not in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce.

And if something bad is encouraged, and ending it is frowned on, then it's not an objective truth. It's an objective wrong.

As always, I'm not going to debate Chesterton. I'm sure I will have things to say about his words when those words are used to support or refute specific points. I've done this often enough in the past. You always say he's right and I'm wrong. I always say I'm right and he's wrong. This about divorce is an example. It's wrong to insist people remain in bad, even terribly abusive, marriages. The society that insists on that has outlived its usefullness.

Well, of course I said "If". And 100 years ago, it is a fact that 50% of marriages did NOT end in divorce. A liberal guestimate would be a maximum of 5% , and the further back you go, the smaller the number gets. Marriage used to be seen as 'for life', Fist.

But I agree that there ARE such things as terribly abusive marriages (and agree that if a spouse really threatens the life and safety of a spouse, that divorce may be necessary - only the number is much smaller than most think, imo. As I said, we ALL like to think of our case as exceptional, and of ourselves as the used and abused person in a relationship. How many here think of themselves as the user and abuser in a relationship? Show of hands, anyone?...

I didn't think so.


Something bad? But what IS bad? I would agree that there are some objective 'bads' that we would agree on. But mere unhappiness over constant fighting with a spouse? (I say this having been there, and still there.) The vow is there to help people over the rough times, when they WOULD otherwise walk. And when they are old, have lost their looks and what makes them attractive and nobody else would have them, they still, for better or worse, have their spouse, bound by a freely vow generally (in Christendom) that was once freely given.

Anyone can say that they are right. On its own, it's just assertion, for me, you or anyone. To prove anything you have to refute argument. THAT is much harder than just saying someone's wrong.

As to not debating Chesterton - I rest my case. Dale Ahlquist is right. To debate Chesterton is to lose, and not one person here can do it and actually win (show his theses to be wrong). So you're not alone, and I don't think it a personal failing. It's simply impossible to do it when the other guy is really, actually right.

[Fist and Faith]

Well, of course I said "If". And 100 years ago, it is a fact that 50% of marriages did NOT end in divorce. A liberal guestimate would be a maximum of 5% , and the further back you go, the smaller the number gets. Marriage used to be seen as 'for life', Fist.

But I agree that there ARE such things as terribly abusive marriages (and agree that if a spouse really threatens the life and safety of a spouse, that divorce may be necessary - only the number is much smaller than most think, imo. As I said, we ALL like to think of our case as exceptional, and of ourselves as the used and abused person in a relationship. How many here think of themselves as the user and abuser in a relationship? Show of hands, anyone?...

I didn't think so.


Something bad? But what IS bad? I would agree that there are some objective 'bads' that we would agree on. But mere unhappiness over constant fighting with a spouse? (I say this having been there, and still there.) The vow is there to help people over the rough times, when they WOULD otherwise walk. And when they are old, have lost their looks and what makes them attractive and nobody else would have them, they still, for better or worse, have their spouse, bound by a freely vow generally (in Christendom) that was once freely given.

Anyone can say that they are right. On its own, it's just assertion, for me, you or anyone. To prove anything you have to refute argument. THAT is much harder than just saying someone's wrong.

The things we usually talk about here are things that cannot be proven or refuted. It's all just assertion. We refute things as they appear to our own worldviews. It's not objectively provable stuff. If it was - like the speed of sound, the strength of gravity on this planet, or the likelihood of living as long with a diet of nothing but marshmallows as with a diet varied with many food groups - we wouldn't be arguing this stuff. But we are, because there's no way to know. Maybe, maybe, we'll find out after we die. Maybe not. (If I'm right, we won't know it.) But we can't prove these things now. I say I'm right. You say you're right.

As to not debating Chesterton - I rest my case. Dale Ahlquist is right. To debate Chesterton is to lose, and not one person here can do it and actually win (show his theses to be wrong). So you're not alone, and I don't think it a personal failing. It's simply impossible to do it when the other guy is really, actually right.

I've won every debate about any point of Chesterton's that we've had. You disagree. See what I mean re above? It's all just assertion. Keep bringing up points, and I'll tell you when you've finally found something he's right about. In the meantime, no amount of taunting will make me fight about the glories of Chesterton. I don't argue over SRD vs Tolkein, or even SRD vs Brooks. I'm not in the Close or the Watch for this kind of thing. But keep bringing up relevant points.

[rusmeister]

Well, of course I said "If". And 100 years ago, it is a fact that 50% of marriages did NOT end in divorce. A liberal guestimate would be a maximum of 5% , and the further back you go, the smaller the number gets. Marriage used to be seen as 'for life', Fist.

But I agree that there ARE such things as terribly abusive marriages (and agree that if a spouse really threatens the life and safety of a spouse, that divorce may be necessary - only the number is much smaller than most think, imo. As I said, we ALL like to think of our case as exceptional, and of ourselves as the used and abused person in a relationship. How many here think of themselves as the user and abuser in a relationship? Show of hands, anyone?...

I didn't think so.


Something bad? But what IS bad? I would agree that there are some objective 'bads' that we would agree on. But mere unhappiness over constant fighting with a spouse? (I say this having been there, and still there.) The vow is there to help people over the rough times, when they WOULD otherwise walk. And when they are old, have lost their looks and what makes them attractive and nobody else would have them, they still, for better or worse, have their spouse, bound by a freely vow generally (in Christendom) that was once freely given.

Anyone can say that they are right. On its own, it's just assertion, for me, you or anyone. To prove anything you have to refute argument. THAT is much harder than just saying someone's wrong.

The things we usually talk about here are things that cannot be proven or refuted. It's all just assertion. We refute things as they appear to our own worldviews. It's not objectively provable stuff. If it was - like the speed of sound, the strength of gravity on this planet, or the likelihood of living as long with a diet of nothing but marshmallows as with a diet varied with many food groups - we wouldn't be arguing this stuff. But we are, because there's no way to know. Maybe, maybe, we'll find out after we die. Maybe not. (If I'm right, we won't know it.) But we can't prove these things now. I say I'm right. You say you're right.

As to not debating Chesterton - I rest my case. Dale Ahlquist is right. To debate Chesterton is to lose, and not one person here can do it and actually win (show his theses to be wrong). So you're not alone, and I don't think it a personal failing. It's simply impossible to do it when the other guy is really, actually right.

I've won every debate about any point of Chesterton's that we've had. You disagree. See what I mean re above? It's all just assertion. Keep bringing up points, and I'll tell you when you've finally found something he's right about. In the meantime, no amount of taunting will make me fight about the glories of Chesterton. I don't argue over SRD vs Tolkein, or even SRD vs Brooks. I'm not in the Close or the Watch for this kind of thing. But keep bringing up relevant points.

On the first, it can be proven that people do not like to be taken advantage of. I may not be able to measure it in kilowatts, but it is no less objective for that. Sin (aka selfishness, 'me first', etc) CAN be proven. On these things there is nothing about taste, matter of opinion or mere assertion. These are facts, and they are not the "hard science" kind. So assertion to the contrary can be dismissed out of the gate in view of the complete lack of evidence denying these things, and the overwhelming dearth proving them. It is NOT mere assertion vs mere assertion. You are defending an ultimately indefensible position, Fist, and you are forced to constantly shift ground between what you are sure of and feel to be true, and claims of personal taste. To avoid the charge of assertion to that, I'll start again with the fact of sin. There IS a moral sense, something that objects to moral treatment of certain kinds, and this is not opinion but fact. A blind man can deny color, but that does not deny it to the overwhelming majority that see color.

One does not win debates by mere assertion. One wins them - shows their validity or invalidity of logic - by argument. It is true that ANY person can do this in their own mind - but when I ask for response to the first point of Chesterton's thesis that the western modern unbeliever is too close to Christianity to judge it impartially; that he is biased against it from the get-go, you back off. You have said precisely nothing about it, even though I have asked for response/comment numerous times. Asserting that he is 'bad' and offering no examples of how this is so is anti-intellectual, as I said above. It is not an attempt to engage thought. There are good reasons why we do not attempt to establish admitted fiction as actual truth, and so do not fight over Donaldson vs Tolkien. This is an attempt to expound actual truth, not personal taste!

But lest you get me wrong, I do not in any wise think you an enemy!!! I think we have all been had, and practically ALL of us are products of our times, in the sense of being trapped into being able to think only in terms which our culture has indoctrinated into us. (That I have ideas of how the modern view came to be so radically opposed to our own ancestors so rapidly I have already indicated, and the thread on Doriendor Corishev is still as dead as ever, indicating a complete ignorance of the topic on the part of all and sundry, but I am willing for the moment to set that aside here.) Point is, we actually have a common enemy, who is capable of convincing us to 'be on his side' - this is MUCH more true than anything else. We have been suckered, and pretty effectively, and it is extraordinarily difficult to think outside the box that we have been trapped in. (That doesn't make me a Gnostic, btw...)

PS - I think that if you ever get a few things through your head, you could be another CS Lewis. I know I don't even come close, but I get a sense of that flame in you. (Not that we're supposed to be gunning for earthly glory, er, brownie points, either...) My long-term goal is to have all of us laughing together over Irish coffee (REAL Irish Coffee*) in heaven...

(For you Amber lovers...)

[aliantha]

Linna -- Yup, you're right, it's apples and oranges.

Being able to explain complex things in clear, simple ways is a great skill set, and not all smart people can do it. =) (cool RE the radio broadcasts, ali! 20 years??? Subjects?)

General stuff. My undergrad degree is in journalism. I worked as a news reporter/anchor/editor for 20 years thereafter, mostly at places you've never heard of. Then I found myself a single mom with two elementary-school-aged kids and was having a lot of trouble finding babysitters who would tolerate my wacky work hours. So I got a paralegal certificate. I've been working as a legal secretary for the past 11.5 years.

[Fist and Faith]

On the first, it can be proven that people do not like to be taken advantage of. I may not be able to measure it in kilowatts, but it is no less objective for that. Sin (aka selfishness, 'me first', etc) CAN be proven. On these things there is nothing about taste, matter of opinion or mere assertion. These are facts, and they are not the "hard science" kind. So assertion to the contrary can be dismissed out of the gate in view of the complete lack of evidence denying these things, and the overwhelming dearth proving them. It is NOT mere assertion vs mere assertion. You are defending an ultimately indefensible position, Fist, and you are forced to constantly shift ground between what you are sure of and feel to be true, and claims of personal taste. To avoid the charge of assertion to that, I'll start again with the fact of sin. There IS a moral sense, something that objects to moral treatment of certain kinds, and this is not opinion but fact. A blind man can deny color, but that does not deny it to the overwhelming majority that see color.

You are right. I agree that humans, on the whole, object to being treated in certain ways. However, not all humans, and it's not the exceptionally small number that you will say it is, object to treating others in those ways, even when they are part of the overwhelming majority that doesn't want to be treated that way themselves.

Also, "Me first" is not necessarily at the expense of anyone else. I can win without having to make you lose. This is one of the biggest aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (And I hope the movie Atlas Shrugged, which is now playing, is any good!!)

One does not win debates by mere assertion. One wins them - shows their validity or invalidity of logic - by argument. It is true that ANY person can do this in their own mind - but when I ask for response to the first point of Chesterton's thesis that the western modern unbeliever is too close to Christianity to judge it impartially; that he is biased against it from the get-go, you back off. You have said precisely nothing about it, even though I have asked for response/comment numerous times. Asserting that he is 'bad' and offering no examples of how this is so is anti-intellectual, as I said above. It is not an attempt to engage thought. There are good reasons why we do not attempt to establish admitted fiction as actual truth, and so do not fight over Donaldson vs Tolkien. This is an attempt to expound actual truth, not personal taste!

I don't particularly care if the western modern unbeliever is too close to Christianity to judge it impartially. If you want, we can discuss Christianity. Isn't that better than discussing the degree of impartiality with which various groups judge it??? I don't know why you'd want to discuss Christianity with me, but I guess I'm game. So which aspect should we discuss?

And, frankly, I'd expect a strong believer to want to discuss that more than Chesterton. How the heck did he come to be the more important thing to defend?

And all this is personal taste. If "actual truth" cannot be demonstrated, then it is just belief. Opinion. And what you think is actual truth is arrived at through methods that I find distasteful. I feel very strongly about how knowledge should be acquired, and I don't think you have acquired the types of knowledge that you think you have. But that's my opinion. Yours is otherwise. Personal taste. It's not the same as when something can be demonstrated to be right or wrong.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Dear rusmeister and Fist,

You are both wrong.
Most of the statements that you make are factually true.
However, you're both missing some important things.

You are clearly not touch with your "inner wise Latina grandmother."*
I am by no means Latina, but at least I am female.

Sincerely,
Linna H.

</Linna being a jerk>

If divorce is in fact socially frowned on, then it DOES mean stronger families, whether spouses even like each other or not, for the simple reason that they must remain unified (barring the conditions that have ALWAYS allowed divorce in our society - infidelity especially). Objectively.

OKAYYYY! This bothers me. It really depends on what you mean by "stronger" families, rus.

Divorce is socially frowned on? Not in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Fist- I don't think "American culture" is monolithic.

Also, even people who have are divorced can judge other people who get a divorce after seeming like they "had it all together." Most people aren't as honest with themselves as you are in certain ways.

* I stole that phrase from some columnist. Thought it was AWESOME.

[Vraith]

Also, "Me first" is not necessarily at the expense of anyone else. I can win without having to make you lose. This is one of the biggest aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (And I hope the movie Atlas Shrugged, which is now playing, is any good!!)

Heh...if everyone can go off topic, I can, so I will...I've heard the movie is not very good, but I'll probably give it a look since I have literally read that book more than anything else except Macbeth and the 1st chrons, far as I recall right now [though had first bbq of the year, and a bit altered in mind...memory might be slippery].
Is THAT what you think comes out of her work? I'd admit it as a hope/wish that works in fiction only. But, just like communist theory, the only problem is it completely ignores decisive aspects of actual human beings...and the "bad" ones it doesn't ignore, it wants outlawed/subjugated. Systemically, it has every failure that absolutist religions do, just a different concept at the top.
Though, I do in fact love that book, and like "The Fountainhead" a lot...and it also has some of the strengths that such absolutist systems have.
Sorta back on topic:
As for parents staying together/splitting up, there's lots of info out there, and most of it comes down, in the end, to the particular people involved:
If they are crappy parents and stay together, the kids are a mess...if they're good parents and split up, the kids are okay. Extended family involvement is good in either case.
And, huge factor: it matters less if society morally approves/disapproves of it...it matters more what the material/economic structures are.
Sometimes the moral/material are parallel. Sometimes they are in opposition.

[Fist and Faith]

Also, "Me first" is not necessarily at the expense of anyone else. I can win without having to make you lose. This is one of the biggest aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (And I hope the movie Atlas Shrugged, which is now playing, is any good!!)

Is THAT what you think comes out of her work? I'd admit it as a hope/wish that works in fiction only.

That's most certainy one of the main themes. They always talk about profiting by their own brains and hard work. They earn all that they make. But interactions with others must be a part of making a profit. You have to at least sell what you make, and you probably have to have transactions with other people or businesses in order to make what you're selling. And they never want to have transactions that are anything other than mutually beneficial. Rearden would never take advantage of someone else. Profiting at the expense of others is the way of the looter. He can have no pride in his accomplishments if he steals or cheats someone out of what he needs.

I'm not saying how well her entire philosophy can work in rl. The ending has them all returning, as though they'll begin a new age for humanity. But the same old crap would doubtless happen again, no matter how they try to prevent it. But I think my previous paragraph is a fantastic philosophy to try to keep in mind at all times.

[rusmeister]

On the first, it can be proven that people do not like to be taken advantage of. I may not be able to measure it in kilowatts, but it is no less objective for that. Sin (aka selfishness, 'me first', etc) CAN be proven. On these things there is nothing about taste, matter of opinion or mere assertion. These are facts, and they are not the "hard science" kind. So assertion to the contrary can be dismissed out of the gate in view of the complete lack of evidence denying these things, and the overwhelming dearth proving them. It is NOT mere assertion vs mere assertion. You are defending an ultimately indefensible position, Fist, and you are forced to constantly shift ground between what you are sure of and feel to be true, and claims of personal taste. To avoid the charge of assertion to that, I'll start again with the fact of sin. There IS a moral sense, something that objects to moral treatment of certain kinds, and this is not opinion but fact. A blind man can deny color, but that does not deny it to the overwhelming majority that see color.

You are right. I agree that humans, on the whole, object to being treated in certain ways. However, not all humans, and it's not the exceptionally small number that you will say it is, object to treating others in those ways, even when they are part of the overwhelming majority that doesn't want to be treated that way themselves.

Also, "Me first" is not necessarily at the expense of anyone else. I can win without having to make you lose. This is one of the biggest aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (And I hope the movie Atlas Shrugged, which is now playing, is any good!!)

One does not win debates by mere assertion. One wins them - shows their validity or invalidity of logic - by argument. It is true that ANY person can do this in their own mind - but when I ask for response to the first point of Chesterton's thesis that the western modern unbeliever is too close to Christianity to judge it impartially; that he is biased against it from the get-go, you back off. You have said precisely nothing about it, even though I have asked for response/comment numerous times. Asserting that he is 'bad' and offering no examples of how this is so is anti-intellectual, as I said above. It is not an attempt to engage thought. There are good reasons why we do not attempt to establish admitted fiction as actual truth, and so do not fight over Donaldson vs Tolkien. This is an attempt to expound actual truth, not personal taste!

I don't particularly care if the western modern unbeliever is too close to Christianity to judge it impartially. If you want, we can discuss Christianity. Isn't that better than discussing the degree of impartiality with which various groups judge it??? I don't know why you'd want to discuss Christianity with me, but I guess I'm game. So which aspect should we discuss?

And, frankly, I'd expect a strong believer to want to discuss that more than Chesterton. How the heck did he come to be the more important thing to defend?

And all this is personal taste. If "actual truth" cannot be demonstrated, then it is just belief. Opinion. And what you think is actual truth is arrived at through methods that I find distasteful. I feel very strongly about how knowledge should be acquired, and I don't think you have acquired the types of knowledge that you think you have. But that's my opinion. Yours is otherwise. Personal taste. It's not the same as when something can be demonstrated to be right or wrong.

On the first, the argument was never that people object to treating others wrong, and you do not engage the argument you disagree with when you present it as claiming things it does not. It is that they are aware of such a thing as wrong behavior - that they have a sense of it that humans universally acknowledged (and called "a conscience"), and that on the whole, there is a general sense of agreement across humanity throughout history on these ideas - the very words "right" and "wrong" in every language are evidence of this.

On the second, it is not defense of Chesterton, but Chesterton's ideas. I do not even want to defend "Christianity" - a word that I have come to realize is unhistorical in reference to the early Church - most of it has gone wrong in its very teachings, departed from the teachings of that early Church. I'm interested in defending the truth, and THAT is what Chesterton does better than anybody. We can bring anybody at all in - you seem to have a higher "tolerance" for Lewis so I'll gladly discuss his defense of faith (which would not be "a defense of Lewis" but again, a defense of the truth - which they merely happen to have discovered, and discovered that it was never their creation. Like GKC said in "Orthodoxy", the other of his greatest books:

For if this book is a joke it is a joke against me. I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before. If there is an element of farce in what follows, the farce is at my own expense; for this book explains how I fancied I was the first to set foot in Brighton and then found I was the last. It recounts my elephantine adventures in pursuit of the obvious. No one can think my case more ludicrous than I think it myself; no reader can accuse me here of trying to make a fool of him: I am the fool of this story, and no rebel shall hurl me from my throne. I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it. I did strain my voice with a painfully juvenile exaggeration in uttering my truths. And I was punished in the fittest and funniest way, for I have kept my truths: but I have discovered, not that they were not truths, but simply that they were not mine. When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom. It may be, Heaven forgive me, that I did try to be original; but I only succeeded in inventing all by myself an inferior copy of the existing traditions of civilized religion.

The modern mentality that holds that truths are "personal" and that they need only be "what you need" and "what works for you" has great difficulty in understanding the idea that a truth can be something that is NOT one's own - that is actually true for everybody - and if it is forgotten, and rediscovered, that the discoverer does not necessarily thereby set himself up as the founder of his own religion, but wishes to expound what is actually true in the face of a thousand falsehoods. If you ever read Chesterton, you will discover that Chesterton does not talk about Chesterton. Even in his autobiography, the very thing that ought to be chock full of him, so to speak, he is elusive. So if we talk about what Chesterton talked about, we will not spend much time talking about Chesterton as an individual, unless you get interested enough to read his biography - to learn about Chesterton the man, you have to read somebody else. (Maisie Ward's biography is considered the most authoritative, being well acquainted with the family and having had more access to his archives than anyone else - and unlike others, she doesn't really waste time in criticism or praise.)

Since I'm interested in the ideas, not the man, I'll bring in any guns I want to support those ideas. It doesn't have to be Chesterton. It's just that I think he did apologetics better than most (in the English language, anyway) - deep thought, humility and humor being his trademarks (and I am only trying to learn them, and I have found him to be a great teacher of those things.

But since you're happy with what you have, it's also mostly useless. Maybe some seeds might stick - things that you do grasp even now are true amid all the things you so hotly disagree with - that might bear fruit in a decade or two.

[rusmeister]

Dear rusmeister and Fist,

You are both wrong.
Most of the statements that you make are factually true.
However, you're both missing some important things.

You are clearly not touch with your "inner wise Latina grandmother."*
I am by no means Latina, but at least I am female.

Sincerely,
Linna H.

</Linna being a jerk>

If divorce is in fact socially frowned on, then it DOES mean stronger families, whether spouses even like each other or not, for the simple reason that they must remain unified (barring the conditions that have ALWAYS allowed divorce in our society - infidelity especially). Objectively.

OKAYYYY! This bothers me. It really depends on what you mean by "stronger" families, rus.

Divorce is socially frowned on? Not in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Fist- I don't think "American culture" is monolithic.

Also, even people who have are divorced can judge other people who get a divorce after seeming like they "had it all together." Most people aren't as honest with themselves as you are in certain ways.

* I stole that phrase from some columnist. Thought it was AWESOME.

Hopefully it doesn't seem like I "judge" (condemn) individuals who are divorced. My parents divorced and I came within a whisker of it at one point, so I think it can be granted that I have a fair amount of sympathy for people who have suffered this. It is the "institution" of divorce that I attack - the modern incarnation of it as a thing that people do because they do not truly understand what it is, and that because they do not understand what they do when they get married in the first place. I credit GKC's "The Superstition of Divorce" with giving me real clarity on what has happened to us so that we now divorce in droves. The most succinct expression is that we have shifted from being a society based on the vow to being a society based on the contract, and contract is antithetical to what marriage is (and I speak only of the understanding of marriage as held in Christendom for going on two millennia until the 20th century).
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/divorce.txt
(My recommendation for the person not sure if they want to read this is to skip to ch 5, "The Story of the Family" and then start again from the beginning when you get what he is driving at)

When I say "stronger family" I do NOT mean "happier" or "closer in bonds of love" - although I do think that people who learn to put up with each other have a greater chance of achieving these things if they stick with it when the going gets rough than if they break all bonds. I mean that in a society based on the vow, as ours was, there is a practical bond - that the society expects them to keep their vow or die trying, and that mere personal discomfort - even with no relief in sight - is not justification to break a sacred vow, and the vow-breakers are held as unreliable - as people who will break vows and therefore less reliable when it comes to making vows.

Of course, if marriage OUGHT to be a contract, essentially, a business deal - "I'll stick with you until I'm no longer 'happy' with you, baby", then there is no reason why it may not be broken any number of times - after all, it is only business. Only I say that it ought NOT be a contract.

Even Christ admitted there is a case for divorce. Only everyone has made their own case a case for divorce: the nebulous idea of happiness as a feeling of euphoria that ought to go on and on, embedded in the pop songs that bombard us and which we are told are "popular" and in the other media, fills us with the idea that 'if I don't feel romantic love in my marriage, I need to go looking for it' - the idea that love is only a feeling and that when the feeling goes, it's time to "end the relationship" - which is quite far from what Christ was talking about. We have so forgotten that love needs to be made, especially when the feeling is absent.

So what was it that I was wrong about? What is it that I'm missing?

(Oh yes - your prayers are coveted - my kids seem to be slowly on the mend, but my wife has gotten worse. If it continues at this rate, she'll have to be hospitalized. She's just started on antibiotics, but between coughing and tossing up, she can hardly do anything now.)

BTW, I don't know if you celebrate church calendar events like Palm Sunday or not (or have learned the value of such cyclical devotion). At any rate, have a blessed Palm Sunday! (The whole thing of Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday is SO awesome, and a prefiguration of Christ's own death and Resurrection.)

[rusmeister]

As for parents staying together/splitting up, there's lots of info out there, and most of it comes down, in the end, to the particular people involved:
If they are crappy parents and stay together, the kids are a mess...if they're good parents and split up, the kids are okay. Extended family involvement is good in either case.

And, huge factor: it matters less if society morally approves/disapproves of it...it matters more what the material/economic structures are.
Sometimes the moral/material are parallel. Sometimes they are in opposition.

Hi Vraith,
The last on material/economic being more important than the moral I cannot disagree with more, although I do agree that matter is good in its beginnings and so think your statement about parallel/opposition has truth in it.

But on divorce, it is plain armchair generalship to say that. How do you know 'the kids are OK?' My parents divorced, and I know the kids were NOT OK - and if my father was not, perhaps, the best of fathers, my mother was surely among the best of mothers. It seems to me that you are talking pure theory. I think it extraordinarily difficult to deny what I said above about polling kids. Kids are just not going to support you on that regarding their parents. Sure you can find the one-in-a-million that we will agree on ought to be divorced. But it's exception vs overwhelming rule here.

I forget if you have children or not, by the way.

[Linna Heartbooger]

So what was it that I was wrong about? What is it that I'm missing?

It's not the content of what you're saying that I disagree with; it's the WAY in which you're talking about this - you see philosophical and societal phenomena; I see individuals and families hurting.

When you talk so freely about this knowledge, (sounds like what you read was a real eye-opener!) sometimes you choose the words that you speak to "the brother who you can see" carelessly. And you show less love than you could.

I can imagine that "being within a whisker of divorce" would be humbling and scary for you. But it's worlds different from actually having gone through a divorce and having to face the consequences.



Will pray for your family! I am not surprised that she would be getting so sick.

Yay, Palm Sunday! Have a wonderful Palm Sunday too. Well, I heard a great sermon about the "life everlasting" line of the Apostle's Creed in a Lutheran church on - apparently - Lazarus Saturday.

[Linna Heartbooger]

So what was it that I was wrong about? What is it that I'm missing?

It's not the content of what you're saying that I disagree with; it's the WAY in which you're talking about this - you see philosophical and societal phenomena; I see individuals and families hurting.

When you talk so freely about this knowledge, (sounds like what you read was a real eye-opener!) sometimes you choose the words that you speak to "the brother who you can see" carelessly. And you show less love than you could. I'm sending you a message as well. Please don't respond to this thread until you read it.

I can imagine that "being within a whisker of divorce" would be humbling and scary for you. But it's worlds different from actually having gone through a divorce and having to face the consequences.

When I say "stronger family" I do NOT mean "happier" or "closer in bonds of love"

Okay. Good. Thank you for making this distinction.

Will pray for your family! I am not surprised that she would be getting so sick.

Yay, Palm Sunday! Have a wonderful Palm Sunday too. Well, I heard a great sermon about the "life everlasting" line of the Apostle's Creed in a Lutheran church on - apparently - Lazarus Saturday.

[rusmeister]

So what was it that I was wrong about? What is it that I'm missing?

It's not the content of what you're saying that I disagree with; it's the WAY in which you're talking about this - you see philosophical and societal phenomena; I see individuals and families hurting.

When you talk so freely about this knowledge, (sounds like what you read was a real eye-opener!) sometimes you choose the words that you speak to "the brother who you can see" carelessly. And you show less love than you could. I'm sending you a message as well. Please don't respond to this thread until you read it.

I can imagine that "being within a whisker of divorce" would be humbling and scary for you. But it's worlds different from actually having gone through a divorce and having to face the consequences.

When I say "stronger family" I do NOT mean "happier" or "closer in bonds of love"

Okay. Good. Thank you for making this distinction.

Will pray for your family! I am not surprised that she would be getting so sick.

Yay, Palm Sunday! Have a wonderful Palm Sunday too. Well, I heard a great sermon about the "life everlasting" line of the Apostle's Creed in a Lutheran church on - apparently - Lazarus Saturday.

Thanks!
(I did read your message.)
And yes, if I have said anything that comes across as insulting or treats divorce as somehow painless or the people who have gone through it as being inferior in some way, then I apologize - sincerely. I mean nothing of the sort. My wife and I were effectively separated for three years. I spent long months of living alone and dealing with the single life and turning to drink because I continually saw my son sobbing "Bye-bye Daddy!" at the airport when they separated us. One consequence was a distancing with him that has never fully healed. (It was also from that memory that I later drew the strength and determination to restore my marriage).

Nor do I speak to individual situations - I know nothing or next to nothing about who has gone through what. It has been said that men speak to a topic; women speak to each other, and I certainly find this true about me. So when speaking to the topic, I am NOT speaking about the individual - or even trying to, and I hope no one has taken my words as condemnation of individuals.

I guess, if there are any hard feelings outstanding (which I again beg forgiveness for any caused by my words!) I would ask what can be said; how can I approach the topic without communicating judgement of individuals? I certainly see a gulf of difference.

I am angry at divorce - at the divorce of my parents, at the divorces that happen all the time - and see that things could have been different. If I had known then what I know now; if we clearly understood love to be an action rather than a feeling, if we were not bombarded by the lies and falsehoods that we soak in from childhood that treat marriage as a thing dependent on feelings, if we returned again to holding the vow as a truly sacred thing not to be broken - then I believe that 98% of marriages could be saved. A new weapon that can win the war may not comfort the family that has lost a son or a father - but it can end the war and prevent future casualties. i suppose people who have been divorced are in that situation of the family that has already lost their warrior. Or maybe it can help them save their second marriage.

Grief over a failed marriage is a hard thing and I do not make light of it. I am committed to being faithful to my wife to the death now no matter how much of a ^%$#@ she may be at times (and naturally, having difficulty noticing how much of a *&^@#@% I can be) and that, I hope, will mean one less woman in the world disappointed in a &^%$#$% faithless husband. I also hope that somehow, what I have learned can be shared - and help strengthen existing marriage and reduce the tendency to see divorce as an option at all. So that more kids have grandparents with the same address and last name, even though mine never will (on my side of the family).