|
| Time catches you like the winds and carries you away with her and when you come to yourself you're a very different person in a very different place. | | |
| It amazes me that the students here at Hillsdale have such an exhaustive knowledge of politics and political philosophy. If you ever find yourself lost in Hillsdale, Michigan, take my advice: Don't get involved in a political discussion. Religion? That's fine--the students here don't know much about that. Philosophy? That's OK--the average student knows a bit. But Politics? Don't do it.
It's not that the vast majority of Libertarians and Conservatives here don't know what they're talking about. They do. As soon as open yourself to the possibility of a political debate they will eagerly engage you. If you happen to disagree with something they say, they will drown you in an obsequiously infinite flow of examples and statistics, many of which you suspect are made up.
This is not true of every Hillsdale student, but it is true of many. The problem for me is their arrogance and close mindedness. Democrats as a whole are frequently regarded as stupid and mindless (which may be true of many, but certainly not all). "How could anyone believe that!" and so forth.
In all thinking matters, nothing is so annoying to me as intellectual arrogance and close-mindedness. It may be obvious to you that the purpose of government is limited to protecting the human's right to life, liberty and property; but it is certainly not obvious to me. I don't know where I stand politically. Libertarianism seems too simple to me, Conservativism blends Church and State dangerously and Liberalism doesn't understand human nature. Where does that put me? I don't know, but I do know I know no one's going to find out where they stand politically when they can't look at other positions with new and humble eyes.
*This is a critique of many Hillsdale students. I have had some great conversations with many other Hillsdale students about politics, philosophy and religion. Hillsdale is a great school, probably in the top ten in this nation. However, this political attitude is one of its few downsides.
| | |
| I have a new blog. I may or may not continue posting here:
Losing my Shadow
* * * * * * * * *
Death puts all in perspective.
Please pray for the Souser family. Mr. Souser, was killed in the Chatsworth, California Metrolink train crash this friday. He was a husband and father of three, and taught my high school economics class. He also recommended Hillsdale to me.
Please pray. | | |
| I just started at Hillsdale College in Michigan so I'm ridiculously busy but I have some stuff to write. I'll get around to eventually.
| | |
| It has been difficult to start "from the beginning" philosophically and see where reason takes me. The difficulty arises mostly from the fact that reason is so based upon presuppositions. I can't even begin to reason or make logical arguments until I've accepted certain presuppositions illogically!
For instance, I must accept that I and the universe exist, that there is an objective true and false, that the reason is a reliable tool for uncovering truth, that the constants I observe in this universe (gravity, behavior of elements, energy, etc.) will remain the constant into the future, and on and on.
There must be hundreds of presuppositions that both you and I accept irrationally. They cannot be proven. Yet we base reason entirely on them! We base reason entirely on irrational assumptions!
The presupposition that is most disturbing to me is the assumption that reason is an accurate tool for uncovering truth.
It gives me a different perspective on people like this guy who demand empirical evidence for every claim. Is it wise to believe only what can be proved? The rationality you use to prove your claim is based on irrationality.
The book I'm reading gave me a further insight into this problem--a scary one for Atheist-Physicalist-Evolutionists. If you are such you believe that all existence consists in physical matter, that any form of God or spirituality does not exists and that mankind developed through Evolution. If such is true then mankind's purpose is survival. Proponents of this worldview will argue that the moral and aesthetic senses of humanity developed in order to promote survival. Actions that promote survival such as helping an old lady across the street are moral. Actions that did not promote survival such as murdering the old lady are immoral. Similarly a green landscape is considered beautiful because humans are most likely to survive there. A desert landscape is considered less beautiful because humans are less likely to survive there. You've heard it before.
Now if the moral and aesthetic senses developed only to promote survival, wouldn't the rational sense also develop solely to promote survival? Wouldn't reason be interested not in discovering what is true, but rather in keeping us alive? How then can it be trusted?
That idea disturbs me and makes that particular position seem self-refuting.
More later as I continue my pursuit of the foundation of reason. | | |
|
