The Philosophical Policeman

[rusmeister]

A dramatic presentation from "The Man Who Was Thursday":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Kl7mc6cIo
(9:37)

[Linna Heartbooger]

"The Man Who Was Thursday"?
Ahh! I "got off on the wrong foot" with GKC because the first thing of his I attempted was "The Man Who Was Thursday."
It was too subtle for me!

But then again, I was the student who read some story by voltaire in collegeand didn't realize that it was completely sarcastic until it was class discussion time.

rus can start a similar thread if he wants...

So, how are you gonna do this? Just like talk to people on this thread here?
Or is this just "popping in once to share something you found that might be of interest"?

[rusmeister]

"The Man Who Was Thursday"?
Ahh! I "got off on the wrong foot" with GKC because the first thing of his I attempted was "The Man Who Was Thursday."
It was too subtle for me!

But then again, I was the student who read some story by voltaire in collegeand didn't realize that it was completely sarcastic until it was class discussion time.

rus can start a similar thread if he wants...

So, how are you gonna do this? Just like talk to people on this thread here?
Or is this just "popping in once to share something you found that might be of interest"?

Kind of a mix - although I don't expect many responses. Maybe if some people express genuine interest I might respond myself more on such threads. If not, then I'll leave it for those who can understand what is being said. But for those who do get it, it's like knowing the difference between cheap wine or "maple syrup" (that's 90% corn syrup) at Trader Joe's and the good stuff (sometimes at the same place) - and once you do know the difference, you don't want to go back to the cheap stuff.

But if you consider the comment on intellectual crime, consider that a simple murderer can murder a limited number of people. But the one who can justify the mass murder of millions is generally the educated criminal. It extends beyond murder, of course, as is implied in the dialog. It's paradoxical, but true - it is educated people who are the real danger to society. The uneducated person offers small threats. The educated person offers the big ones - although he may not see them as such. It is the idea that education is something that is an unqualified good - as if there were no such thing as an education that could lead someone to evil, that is unfounded. A good education might produce the American founding fathers. A bad one can produce Lenin and Goebbels. As Lewis said, education without morality seems to create rather clever devils.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Kind of a mix - although I don't expect many responses. Maybe if some people express genuine interest I might respond myself more on such threads.

Sooo... do you mean "threads" (as in threads started by other people as well?) or "thread" singular, meaning this thread?

I recognize that some of your responses to challenge the philosophical basis for the rules that people on this forum set were interpreted as "trying to say they shouldn't apply to you."

This is what I think happened:
You thought you were responding to intellectual content.
Other people thought you were trying to get out of respecting rules laid down.
(I think it's more complex than either one interpretation.)

I'm gonna assume that - in practice - you're entirely willing to respect (in terms of responding in obedience to rules which affect you, insofar as you understand them) the authorities whether you agree with them or not.
(a la Paul's letter to the Romans 13)

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Given that before you left, you were told, "you are only to post on THIS thread" - and then the thread was locked, I think the status of what you are to do right now is somewhat ambiguous. (though clearly it was okay for you to create a thread for yourself because of Fists comment.)

I think you need to get some clarification on the status of where you are to be posting before you post on any other thread in the Close.

I don't blame you for wanting to leave the Watch just then.
And I know that sometimes things cool down after a day or two's worth of break.

I think speaking on just one own thread can have its strengths: the people who are most interested sympathetic to your views WILL ask questions.
I have some of my own questions that I've held back for MONTHS because there's always so many other debates going on.
(I think your views have probably influenced me more than they've influenced most of the people you debate with.)

Ummm, my child says "I think we should put a smiley face at the end." Hmmm, not a bad idea... he picked this one:
So yeah, I really want this to "work," if you think you'll stick around.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

As Lewis said, education without morality seems to create rather clever devils.

I see the simple wisdom of this statement. However, I wonder if it is possible to have an education on morality that does not presuppose one specific brand of morality, or offer one as superior to the others? Such an idea of course goes against several of the major morality brands, which all claim supremacy. In other words, why can't we have a neutral system that can espouse the benefits of morality without telling you which one is the 'best'?

dw

[Linna Heartbooger]

Also, RE "The Man Who Was Thursday"...
Wasn't the character "Sunday" supposed to be:

Spoiler

the fictional image of "God" envisioned by people* who are misinterpreting Christianity's meaning?

rather than actually representing an evil leader of human systems?

* And here I use "people" in a very general way - even Christians can have a false image of God.
I know that in various ways, intellectually, I have a false image of God; I am seeking constantly to grow in knowledge of Him.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Rus- there was a post that I assume was directed to you on another thread so I'm copyin' it here so you'll see it.

Why "war" at all? Spiritual, virtual, real? Why? I was going to mention a l"oving" God, but it seems rather pointless, especially if "God" gave us free will. I think "spiritual" war is just transference excuse for the blatant disregard of human life we have as a species and fail to take responsibility for. We can find it within us--if we're not too lazy to work to open up that huge portion of our brain we don't use and open up that huge portion of our heart we don't use either to not judge, respect and practice the only real useful part of the Testaments: The Ten Commandments. (but if they're in the Bible it's just transference excuse!, right!? We can be as hypocritical as we want, we don't really have to practice them!!! No, no...don't love>love bad ooo very bad.)

[rusmeister]

As Lewis said, education without morality seems to create rather clever devils.

I see the simple wisdom of this statement. However, I wonder if it is possible to have an education on morality that does not presuppose one specific brand of morality, or offer one as superior to the others? Such an idea of course goes against several of the major morality brands, which all claim supremacy. In other words, why can't we have a neutral system that can espouse the benefits of morality without telling you which one is the 'best'?

dw

I think the simplest answer (since you seem to be asking sincerely) is that morality must be based in truth. It is almost tautological to say that if something is moral or immoral, then it is truth to say so, and inevitably, mutual exclusivity is going to make the compatibility of ideas impossible. A concept of morality cannot be based merely in a desire for people of differing beliefs to get along, as much as we might desire their getting along. But for the educated person, that answer is almost too simple. That's kind of the point of that one part of the video posted. We humans have this ability to learn to 'outfox' ourselves. My relatively uneducated northeastern family would say "No duh" if I put it in slightly simpler terms. It is the educated person who tends to come up with the idea of making incompatible things compatible.

You asked. And I don't want to seem anti-social. But I really don't want to go in circles arguing. I can only try to make the view graspable to the rational mind as a rational view (right or wrong).

I think the video (like pretty much everything else I refer or link to) more interesting than me. Think of me as 'the guy who comments on/tries to explain the video'.

[rusmeister]

Hi Linna, good stuff - pardon the extreme brevity - I'm already tired.

Yeah, I'm not into flouting rules; I generally believe in authority (in case it's not obvious)

Yes, I do think the interpretations are more complex.

On TMWWT, hee hee hee! I'll just say your spoiler doesn't go deep enough, and there is definitely room for maneuver outside your idea. The book of Job is one hint.

I don't see much use in responding to Danlo's idea - I've spoken again and again about interpretation (and evaluation) of Scripture - what can I say when a person completely outside of all traditions attempts to do this? If he's going to do it and not consider the need to reference the tradition that gave birth to the text, there's nothing you can say. What was said about "the useful parts" of Scripture kind of says it all - a person who's seeking to USE Scripture for his own ends, rather than understand it within the context of its Tradition. But I think that's a general modern malaise anyway. We want to know everything for ourselves, and to defer to authority above us nowhere at all if we can.

And again, I don't want any of this to distract from the OP, which is all about watching the video. What of interest was said, if anything?

[danlo]

Advising people to consider following the Ten Commandments is using it for my own ends? Please, tradition aside, what's wrong with following them? Thou shalt not kill? What's wrong with that? Judge not? As above so below.

[Linna Heartbooger]

I don't see much use in responding to Danlo's idea - I've spoken again and again about interpretation (and evaluation) of Scripture - what can I say when a person completely outside of all traditions attempts to do this?

Okay... that's cool.

Personally, I do a lot of stepping back and saying "okay, I am not the right person to engage this one."
I think that in many cases, the right thing to do is to say, "I don't want to talk about this particular idea at this particular time in this particular context.
As you know (intellectually, at least!), it doesn't mean that you or your ideas or your theology or tradition are wrong, even if you don't want to respond to every single argument right NOW.

Sometimes when I see you on this forum, rus, I think you feel like a solo performer on a stage, who always has to produce the right answer.
(even though I know that you intellectually know that's not the case.)
Nobody should have to feel like choosing not to pursue a particular discussion means they must be wrong.
(Likewise, I think that nobody should infer that "if this person doesn't answer my argument, then he/she must be wrong"!)

No idea what time it is there. Get some rest, man!

[Fist and Faith]

As Lewis said, education without morality seems to create rather clever devils.

I quite agree. Of course, I very strongly disagree with Lewis and you on which side of the debate is good and which is bad in regards to many specific aspects of morality. I'm not saying which or why, though. We've fought over these things enough, I think. Lol. And since we can't prevent each other from doing so, I'll educate my kids in the framework of my morality, and you do the same with yours.

[ussusimiel]

As Lewis said, education without morality seems to create rather clever devils.

I see the simple wisdom of this statement. However, I wonder if it is possible to have an education on morality that does not presuppose one specific brand of morality, or offer one as superior to the others? Such an idea of course goes against several of the major morality brands, which all claim supremacy. In other words, why can't we have a neutral system that can espouse the benefits of morality without telling you which one is the 'best'?

dw

I am an optimist in regard to this. I believe that human nature is born in love and so orients itself in that direction (if it isn't twisted out of shape by trauma or neglect). IMO, most mainstream belief systems and any honestly followed systems of thought lead inevitably, through respect, towards love. We don't emotionally engage with the systems, we emotionally engage with each other through them. The engagement is the common factor.

And here I will sing again my song of integrity. Anyone who engages in their chosen system with integrity is living the good life. And to others who have integrity their life will shine out like a beacon. The systems may be incompatible but the shared humanity is inescapable. Recognising that is the key. That is true community.

u.

[rusmeister]

If y'all would be so kind as to refer to the OP...

[ussusimiel]

If y'all would be so kind as to refer to the OP...

'rus the moderator' it's almost ironic

[Fist and Faith]

You think you'll like my thoughts on that? Heh.

[Orlion]

If y'all would be so kind as to refer to the OP...

Seemed kinda preachy to me, but then again, it could just be setting some future plot point, where the main character discovers that both anarchists and philosophical police are 'bad'. Fairly decent acting, though

I find it interesting that the officer makes a distinction between who regular officers go after and who philosophical officers go after. It's quite clear to the character (I'll call him Thursday) that a regular police officer will often pester the poor, and from the perspective of a police officer, that is probably because they believe the poor to be the source of crimes, even though this could (and I assume in this world) is wrong. The philosophical Policeman does the same thing, but with the educated people. He is convinced that the educated people are the source of the 'anarchist conspiracy' and will pester them much like the regular officer pesters the poor. In both cases, they aren't solving the problem.

[ussusimiel]

I'll hazard a couple of questions:

- Is it really a conflict between the folly of youth and the wisdom of age?

(Conservative versus radical? Traditional versus modern?)

- Is there also an overt criticism of Marx or is property being used as an example to illustrate another point?

u.

[rusmeister]

If y'all would be so kind as to refer to the OP...

Seemed kinda preachy to me, but then again, it could just be setting some future plot point, where the main character discovers that both anarchists and philosophical police are 'bad'. Fairly decent acting, though

I find it interesting that the officer makes a distinction between who regular officers go after and who philosophical officers go after. It's quite clear to the character (I'll call him Thursday) that a regular police officer will often pester the poor, and from the perspective of a police officer, that is probably because they believe the poor to be the source of crimes, even though this could (and I assume in this world) is wrong. The philosophical Policeman
does the same thing, but with the educated people. He is convinced that the educated people are the source of the 'anarchist conspiracy' and will pester them much like the regular officer pesters the poor. In both cases, they aren't solving the problem.

Fair enough. (at least you're addressing it).
If you were treating this fairly, though, as a story, you wouldn't put quote marks around 'the anarchist conspiracy', any more than you'd treat a statement by an SRD character as a mere allegation. You'd conditionally grant that on some level, in that world, there really was such a thing.

As to not solving the problem, well, I guess you haven't read the book...

[rusmeister]

I'll hazard a couple of questions:

- Is it really a conflict between the folly of youth and the wisdom of age?

(Conservative versus radical? Traditional versus modern?)

- Is there also an overt criticism of Marx or is property being used as an example to illustrate another point?

u.

I'd say no, no, no and no, although 'traditional vs modern' scratches a surface.

Yes, the reference to property does make a larger point. Some of the topical references do refer to fashionable movements of the time, thus, anarchy as a movement and property as a thing to be abolished both were popular ideas among the intellectual classes of the time. The book became an influential classic in spite of that. The point is that the fashionable ideas opposed to the general traditions of humankind really ARE destructive, whether it be property or marriage, social order or whatever. It is the fashionable experiment that is doomed to fail, such as the Bolshevik denial of personal property or the modern denial of traditional marriage that are doomed to failure, though it take a generation or three for the failure and its destructive results to become apparent and a new generation of intellectuals to finally admit that the previous one was wrong - only to come up with some new intellectual fashion - heresy, if you will, equally destructive and rebellious in its turn - and the ordinary common folk are left to clean up the aftermath of the previous rebellion. I live in Russia, and I cannot foresee when the Russians will be able to say that the Communist legacy is a thing of the past with no present effects.