The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh boy. Where did you pick that passage from?

EDIT: Never mind, here it is:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113704370906&p=1006953079865

AFAICS, the seminary was not in a Hitler Youth "Camp" (whatever that is). The Hitler Youth was, it would seem, the Nazi version of the Boy Scouts.

Ha you got me on one. i had read two different times.

However read that passage, is that seminary a Catholic seminary. handing out tuition credits to good little nazis. Hell even the Nazi teachers at the Catholic seminary didnt think being a Nazi was all that important to kids in the seminary.

Well WHO did.... Pope Pius did ,,, now didnt he?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Ha you got me on one. i had read two different times.

[b]However read that passage, is that seminary a Catholic seminary. handing out tuition credits to good little nazis. Hell even the Nazi teachers at the Catholic seminary didnt think being a Nazi was all that important to kids in the seminary.

Well WHO did.... Pope Pius did ,,, now didnt he?[/b]

However read that passage, is that seminary a Catholic seminary. handing out tuition credits to good little nazis.

Why don't you tell me? Were educational institutions required to show pupils' proof of attendance at HY meetings to legally hand out aid?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]However read that passage, is that seminary a Catholic seminary. handing out tuition credits to good little nazis.

Why don't you tell me? Were educational institutions required to show pupils' proof of attendance at HY meetings to legally hand out aid?[/b]

How would I know ? Im taking Ratzinger's word on that, are you saying he was lying?

Originally posted by frogstomp
How would I know ? Im taking Ratzinger's word on that, are you saying he was lying?

How would I know ?

If you don't know then you cannot back your "good little nazis" accusation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]How would I know ?

If you don't know then you cannot back your "good little nazis" accusation.[/b]

you ought to read my posts a bit more carefully, who did I accuse of being a "good little Nazi" ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b][b]But what about abortion?

What about it?[/b]

Simply this - unlike homosexuality, abortion involves the termination of a life. Unlike homosexuality, it happens without the consent of the living being whose life is being terminated.

You know only too well the arguments on both sides of the abortion debate - so I'm not going to repeat ...[text shortened]... neither intellect nor will and, therefore, cannot be considered a person.
---

Cheers,

LH[/b]

You've said you tend to distrust moral philosophy - perhaps because you feel it is too "theoretical" or "academic" and not close enough to the realities of life. But what moral philosophy aims to do is to provide a coherent and consistent view of morality. We value consistency in moral principles; we identify it with the integrity of the person.

What I said was that I tend to distrust systemic moral philosophies, perhaps that I do think that the realities of life often tend to slip through the cracks of any “bounded” philosophical system. That does not mean that I simply reject everything that such a system offers, nor that such systemic “modeling” does not have its place (think, “cartography” 🙂), just that I do not bind my thinking within the confines of such a system. I do not say, “Well, Hegel (name picked out of the air, as a systemic philosopher) was right about this, so everything in his system must be correct”—or vice versa; even if his system is internally consistent, based on his axioms; I may find some of his axioms to be incorrect, say.

The willingness to (1) examine one’s convictions, and (2) to be willing to change when convinced that one’s prior convictions were in error—and on and on—is at least as much a measure of personal integrity as consistency. Suppose that I were to decide that my current view of homosexuality was in error—based on continued research and reflection, etc.—and that the Catholic position was correct: Would you accuse me of violating my personal integrity because I changed my position? I don’t think so. Would you counsel me never to re-examine the issue for myself, now that I had come to a “right” understanding? No, I don’t think you would (I have never accused you of close-mindedness!). Keeping a continually open mind is difficult—and carries with it its own risks—but it, too, is a measure of intellectual honesty.

Nietzsche once wrote: “A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions." Now, I disagree with the first part of that statement—I think that having the courage of one’s convictions is a virtue. But I do agree with the second part, and I try to have that courage as well (not that I claim to be a very courageous person).

And what if he [the Pope]† does? Isn't that his prerogative as the Head of the Church?

Of course it is! But lets say that I am faced with voting for a legislator that is going to be faced with that issue. I want to know as many of the factors that are going to influence how that legislator makes decisions on the issues; and an honest candidate is going to be honest about such things. I may well vote for him anyway, as I balance all the factors! I don’t ever recall voting for someone with whom I agreed on all the issues; and as a citizen, I may “lobby” to try to change that person’s mind about areas where we disagree. Is there any problem with that?

EDIT: I value the idea that a plurality of divergent views, including moral and religious, have voice/vote in a democratic society. That can be messy and imperfect and risky, with lots of back-and-forth tug-of-war and shifting alliances and changing laws. But I'd rather have it that way, which is why it takes a lot of powerful evidence for me to want to exclude any group from the process. Roman Catholicism is part of the many-stranded architecture of this country too; its only groups that want to destroy that "many-strandedness" itself that I have a problem with.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]How would I know ?

If you don't know then you cannot back your "good little nazis" accusation.[/b]

while I got your attention , dontcha just love photos like these:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

edit and a few more pics:

http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm

Originally posted by frogstomp
while I got your attention , dontcha just love photos like these:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

edit and a few more pics:

http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm

Whoops! But hey, apologetics are quite certain he wasn't a practising xtian, you know. Stop spreading the lies.

Originally posted by David C
Whoops! But hey, apologetics are quite certain he wasn't a practising xtian, you know. Stop spreading the lies.

Im still waiting to hear about one single Nazi that got excommunicated before or during WW2 for not following the Pope's rules for Catholics in either legislative or judicial bodies, or for that matter why neither Hitler nor Mussolini were excommunicated.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]You've said you tend to distrust moral philosophy - perhaps because you feel it is too "theoretical" or "academic" and not close enough to the realities of life. But what moral philosophy aims to do is to provide a coherent and consistent view of morality. We value consistency in moral principles; we identify it with the integrity of the person. ...[text shortened]... s only groups that want to destroy that "many-strandedness" itself that I have a problem with.[/b]

I do [b]not say, “Well, Hegel (name picked out of the air, as a systemic philosopher) was right about this, so everything in his system must be correct”—or vice versa; even if his system is internally consistent, based on his axioms; I may find some of his axioms to be incorrect, say.[/b]

But do you think it is important that you be consistent about your own, personal, moral system (philosophy?) at any given time? That, even if you do change your moral convictions, you change them so that your views remain consistent?

Suppose that I were to decide that my current view of homosexuality was in error—based on continued research and reflection, etc.—and that the Catholic position was correct: Would you accuse me of violating my personal integrity because I changed my position? I don’t think so. Would you counsel me never to re-examine the issue for myself, now that I had come to a “right” understanding?

What you are talking about here is constancy; what I have been talking about was [internal] consistency.

Constancy (also manifested as reliability) is an important aspect of integrity, but it is tricky. Too little of it and you are unreliable; too much of it and you are rigid.

But moral philosophy is all about consistency.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I do [b]not say, “Well, Hegel (name picked out of the air, as a systemic philosopher) was right about this, so everything in his system must be correct”—or vice versa; even if his system is internally consistent, based on his axioms; I may find some of his axioms to be incorrect, say.[/b]

But do you think it is important that you be ...[text shortened]... unreliable; too much of it and you are rigid.

But moral philosophy is all about consistency.[/b]

But do you think it is important that you be consistent about your own, personal, moral system (philosophy?) at any given time? That, even if you do change your moral convictions, you change them so that your views remain consistent?

The constancy/consistency distinction helps, though they are often used interchangeably in everyday discourse. If someone changes their position, they are usually not called “inconstant” but “inconsistent.”

In terms of internal consistency, of course. Actually, one is only likely to change his convictions if: (1) they are found to be internally inconsistent with the rest of one’s general “worldview,” or (2) one’s worldview changes (say, because of experience, new information, seeing things that one had not thought of before—and I think this kind of process probably never ends) in such a way that as to generate anomalies in/with the moral part of the picture, or one can no longer accept the axioms one held formally, etc.

Constancy (also manifested as reliability) is an important aspect of integrity, but it is tricky. Too little of it and you are unreliable; too much of it and you are rigid.

Yes. And thus one can be very reliable to others, and absolutely betray himself, his internal; conscience, etc.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How do you figure? And please do not play to the gallery - I give you much more credit than that based on your previous posts.

Freedom (people are at leisure to pick & choose among the cornucopia of items for sale in the (ethical, moral, spiritual) supermarkets of today) is slavery (lacking any authoritative basis for their choices, people are reduced to their personal preferences; their choices are convenient but meaningless; their actions are ultimately predicated on external circumstances rather than "inner truth" or some other comparable value).

Isn't the Pope preaching a return to bedrock values so that Fred & Thelma can have a sound moral basis for decision-making?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Freedom (people are at leisure to pick & choose among the cornucopia of items for sale in the (ethical, moral, spiritual) supermarkets of today) is slavery (lacking any authoritative basis for their choices, people are reduced to their personal preferences; their choices are convenient but meaningless; their actions are ultimately pred ...[text shortened]... return to bedrock values so that Fred & Thelma can have a sound moral basis for decision-making?

remind me again who fred and thelma are???

Originally posted by lioyank
remind me again who fred and thelma are???

They live in Bedrock.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They live in Bedrock.

ok. and whats wrong with your last sentence from your previous post is that we dont live in bedrock anymore, so it would be closer to george and judy, wouldnt it? if your bedrock thing was meant for some other purpose, im sorry and what was it supposed to symbolize?