John C. Wright's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are 20 journal entries, after skipping by the 20 most recent ones recorded in
John C. Wright's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 -- Next 20 >> ]
| Tuesday, February 19th, 2013 | | 11:50 pm |
Illustrations of the Tao
To forestall the inevitable tedium of repeating what should be a well known idea among all literate men, allow me to quote some examples of what philosopher’s call Natural Law, or Objective Morality.
The examples here are not being used to prove the maxims given. It is not being argued, for example, that merely because all literate races of man extol generosity and excoriate adultery that generosity is good and adultery is bad.
The examples are merely offered to establish the phenomenon to be explained, namely, that men of every culture and age agree on the moral principles, even if they disagree on how those principles are to be applied.
If morality were manmade, as positive law is, or as writing systems are, then they were differ as positive law codes differ, or differ as much as cuneiform differs from runes or hieroglyphs or ideographs or alphabets. But what we have here is a collection of statements, some originally written in runes or alphabets or hieroglyphs or ideograms, which all express the same few moral imperatives in different words. That indicates that this part of the moral law of man is not manmade but natural. Hence it is called Natural Law.
Myself, I would argue that the moral laws exists in the human heart due to the intention of the supernatural creator of man, who also has the authority to command obedience to them, and the power to disseminate these laws instantaneously at creation into every rational spirit. However, other theories can be argued as well. What cannot be argued is that there is no phenomenon to be explained by any theory, no agreement on the natural moral code.
The words below are those of CS Lewis.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | 11:50 pm |
Illustrations of the Tao
To forestall the inevitable tedium of repeating what should be a well known idea among all literate men, allow me to quote some examples of what philosopher’s call Natural Law, or Objective Morality.
The examples here are not being used to prove the maxims given. It is not being argued, for example, that merely because all literate races of man extol generosity and excoriate adultery that generosity is good and adultery is bad.
The examples are merely offered to establish the phenomenon to be explained, namely, that men of every culture and age agree on the moral principles, even if they disagree on how those principles are to be applied.
If morality were manmade, as positive law is, or as writing systems are, then they were differ as positive law codes differ, or differ as much as cuneiform differs from runes or hieroglyphs or ideographs or alphabets. But what we have here is a collection of statements, some originally written in runes or alphabets or hieroglyphs or ideograms, which all express the same few moral imperatives in different words. That indicates that this part of the moral law of man is not manmade but natural. Hence it is called Natural Law.
Myself, I would argue that the moral laws exists in the human heart due to the intention of the supernatural creator of man, who also has the authority to command obedience to them, and the power to disseminate these laws instantaneously at creation into every rational spirit. However, other theories can be argued as well. What cannot be argued is that there is no phenomenon to be explained by any theory, no agreement on the natural moral code.
The words below are those of CS Lewis.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | 11:50 pm |
Illustrations of the Tao
To forestall the inevitable tedium of repeating what should be a well known idea among all literate men, allow me to quote some examples of what philosopher’s call Natural Law, or Objective Morality.
The examples here are not being used to prove the maxims given. It is not being argued, for example, that merely because all literate races of man extol generosity and excoriate adultery that generosity is good and adultery is bad.
The examples are merely offered to establish the phenomenon to be explained, namely, that men of every culture and age agree on the moral principles, even if they disagree on how those principles are to be applied.
If morality were manmade, as positive law is, or as writing systems are, then they were differ as positive law codes differ, or differ as much as cuneiform differs from runes or hieroglyphs or ideographs or alphabets. But what we have here is a collection of statements, some originally written in runes or alphabets or hieroglyphs or ideograms, which all express the same few moral imperatives in different words. That indicates that this part of the moral law of man is not manmade but natural. Hence it is called Natural Law.
Myself, I would argue that the moral laws exists in the human heart due to the intention of the supernatural creator of man, who also has the authority to command obedience to them, and the power to disseminate these laws instantaneously at creation into every rational spirit. However, other theories can be argued as well. What cannot be argued is that there is no phenomenon to be explained by any theory, no agreement on the natural moral code.
The words below are those of CS Lewis.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Monday, February 18th, 2013 | | 2:21 am |
Mike the Martian and the Attack of the Argumentroid
One of the argumentroids of Robert Heinlein has annoyed me for years.
I was irked not the least because this particular argumentroid suckered me in my innocent youth, back when I was so proud of being a nonconformist, as were we all in my generation, and so proud of believing exactly what all the other nonconformists believed.
But let me first explain what my silly made-up word is supposed to mean.
I have always held that Science Fiction was never actually fiction stories about science. Instead, it is stories about fictional science.
Writers routinely commended for the “hardness” of their hard SF, that is to say, commended for their realism, such as Larry Niven or Isaac Asimov or Arthur C Clarke, will introduce teleportation or psycho-history or faster than light drives or telepathy, none of which has any more scientific realism than flying carpets that run on happy thoughts and fairy dust.
And Robert Heinlein, the Dean of Science Fiction, was like them a past master of the art of making their unscientific baloney seem scientific.
The writer’s chore is to lull the dragons of skepticism which guard the castle of the mind so that the waking dream of the tale can slip into the gates. The reader places himself into a half-hypnotic half-awake state known as “suspension of disbelief” where, for the sake of the story, the reader is willing to swallow the baloney if only his imagination is given enough excuse. In other words, it is not scientific accuracy that science fiction seeks or delivers, but scientific verisimilitude.
It is not supposed to be scientific, but scientifroid, if I may coin an awkward term for some hulking shape that looks vaguely like science in a dim light, but is not.
This is done in science fiction by mimicking some of the tropes of science. For example, Larry Niven posits in his ‘Known Space’ yarns that the law of conservation of momentum applies to teleportation booths, so that it is more expensive to teleport from the North Pole to the Equator than to the South Pole, because of the difference in angular momentum between a body at rest at either Pole versus a body being carried along at the speed of the rotation of the Earth. Teleportation is still hooey, but it seems more scientific if it suffers a reasonable scientific (or, rather scientifroid) limitation.
Now, it has been known since the ancient Greeks erected their first shrine to the Muses that poets and playwrights and novelists who have the craft of working this half-hypnotic trick of making the unlikely seem likely have a dangerous or divine power.
The novelist has the most powerful rhetorical tool of all at his command. He has an audience that willingly is attempting to suspend their disbelief for the sake of the story. This means, unfortunately, that a certain amount of mental litter, opinions, editorializing, propaganda and “spin” also can make it past the dragons of skepticism while they slumber.
And therein lies a certain danger, because the editorializing is not written like an editorial, where the readers knows the editor is opining an opinion; it is written like a tale. We judge editorials on their rhetorical skill and soundness of argument, their power to appeal to the passions and the reason. We judge tales on their entertainment value, their power to amuse and divert.
 And, of course, the amusement value of any editorial hidden in a tale has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument given. If the reader already has a definite opinion opposing the writer’s, or if the reader has hair-triggered skepticism in general, will he be likely even to notice he is being played for a sap.
Because an editorial put across in a story will not actually put forth an argument, except on very rare occasions indeed. It put forth an argumentoid, a hulking shape that looks like an argument in a dim light.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Thursday, February 14th, 2013 | | 11:01 am |
| | Monday, February 11th, 2013 | | 10:25 am |
G.I. Jane Speaks
Only posting a link, or, rather, a letter from a female vet who goes by the handle ‘Sentry.’ Hat tip to Jazz Shaw at Hot Air for this letter:
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
| | 10:25 am |
G.I. Jane Speaks
Only posting a link, or, rather, a letter from a female vet who goes by the handle ‘Sentry.’ Hat tip to Jazz Shaw at Hot Air for this letter:
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
| | Saturday, February 9th, 2013 | | 3:55 am |
Future War
Why is the preferred weapon of the Galactic Empire the sword? It is to answer that question and perhaps one or two other questions of deeper import that this essay attempts.
Science fiction is now old enough that a perspective of its changes over time is possible, to contrast the dreams of past futures with the present futures.
A particularly telling survey should look at future war stories. Of all the institutions of man, war is the one that is the closest mortal men ever reach to hell. In war, good men do bad things, law and order breaks down, but also becomes tyrannical as military exigencies force civilian rights to one side, and continual fear, danger, desperation, and stench of death renders life brutal and miserable and hopeless. There is one small ray of heaven in this hell, tiny as a thread of sunlight that steals through the lock of a prison door, which is that the emergency can from time to time bring out acts of selfless and unselfregarding fortitude, patriotism, honor, sacrifice, and heroism.
War is fundamental. A man’s views on war tell you the basic axioms of his view on life. Because of this, a popular war story will tell you in an abbreviated form much about the storyteller’s most fundamental ideals and fears, and that of his audience.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Friday, February 8th, 2013 | | 11:33 am |
Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons!
I miss the days when I was a card-carrying Libertarian. We may have been semi-anarchist pro-porn selfish nuts, but at least there were none among us who could be accused of favoring totalitarian tyranny over Constitutional government.
As a conservative, I am not so lucky. Why is there even a single one of our ranks who favors the monstrosity of secret assassination of American citizens?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/02/05/drone-killing-without-due-process-and-obama-and-ayers/
I’m staggered to see Harold Ford not only say he supports the killing of American citizens without evidence, solid intelligence or due process, but also to suggest that politicians and ideologues who were relentless in claiming that “enhanced interrogation” shamed America might find themselves in sympathy for the Bush position, for the current sake of Obama. Suddenly, the idea that we had standards that should not be abandoned, even in times of war, should be set aside.
My question for my fellow Tea Party conservatives is this: you are willing to march on Washington for a sake of constitutional limitations on government, and a halt to the insane levels of spending and borrowing that has put the next two generations into hock. Why are you willing to stomach this without protest, civil disobedience, obstruction, tumult, riot? Was all that talk about the Constitution just talk?
Did you believe the Left, that we were torturing and murdering Muslims, flushing their Korans down the toilet, and thought this was necessary to the war effort? Did you believe that law, order, decency, and honor becomes optional at wartime? Then you are no true conservative.
My question for any honest members of the opposition, if there are any, is this: you are will to dress up in Guy Fawkes masks and march on Wall Street and maintain a public nuisance and crap on police cars to express your dissatisfaction with living in a free market economy and being the most pampered generation of the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. Why are you willing to stomach this?
Even if you trust President Obama as a Lightworker who will never abuse this unchecked, untrammeled, and unobserved power, why do you trust that we, whom you dismiss as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic exophobic buck-toothed hillbillies will not vote in a President Nixon, President Palin, President Buchanan, President Bushitler or President Nehemiah Scudder? If you are so afraid of the Jewish Interests ruling Wall Street and their power over the political process, why do you allow the political process the power to assassinate American citizens abroad without a warrant, without a hearing, and without any records being kept?
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Monday, February 4th, 2013 | | 10:26 am |
Tell the Boy Scout Leadership to show some Leadership
From Catholic and Enjoying It.
… Sadly it seems that National [Boy Scout Leadership] is considering trying to punt the matter to the unit level, with the chartering organization deciding on whether to admit homosexuals or not. Would be hard to run a National Jamboree with some troops keeping the traditional understanding of Morally Straight, and other troops indulging in “Gay Pride” displays. Proposed policy is at http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspxWe need to join together as Scouts and Adult leaders to stop the Membership Policy change. It would lead to situations similar to the Episcopal and Anglican Churches. To tell National to keep the current rules, contact info is here myscouting@scouting.org , the National Help Desk at 877-272-1910, or the BSA National Council operator at 972-580-2000. http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/BSAFoundation/ContactInformation.aspx
Make the phones ring off the walls, friends. Here are some numbers to try:
Select BSA Board Members:
* David L. Beck: (801) 240-1000
* R. Thomas Buffenbarger: (310) 967-4500
* Keith A. Clark: (717) 763-1121
* William F. “Rick” Cronk: (925) 283-7229
* John C. Cushman III: (904) 393-9020
* R. Michael Daniel: (412) 297-4989
* Jack D. Furst: (972) 982-8250
* T. Michael Goodrich: (205) 328-9445 ext. 200
* Earl G. Graves: (212) 242-8000
* Aubrey B. Harwell Jr.: (615) 244-1713
* Stephen Hemsley: (800) 328-5979
* Larry W. Kellner: (713) 468-4050
* Robert J. LaFortune: (918) 582-2981
* Joseph P. Landy: (212) 878-0600
* Francis R. McAllister: (406) 373-8700
* Scott D. Oki: (425) 454-2800
* Arthur F. Oppenheimer: (208) 343-4883
* Tico A. Perez: (407) 849-1235
* Robert H. Reynolds: (317) 231-7227
* Matthew K. Rose: (909) 386-4140
* Nathan O. Rosenberg: (949) 494-4553
* Roger M. Schrimp: (209) 526-3500
* Marshall M. Sloane: (781) 395-3000
* Rex W. Tillerson: (972) 444-1000
* David M. Weekley: (713) 659-8111
* Togo D. West, Jr.: (202) 775-1775
The important point to make is that the Boy Scouts is one of the few institutions left in America which tries to get boys to develop character and integrity, to have standards and to live up to them. No matter what, the Boy Scouts of America could be counted upon to do the right thing and not yield to any social pressure, and has thus far stood strong.
The BSA should not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | 10:26 am |
Tell the Boy Scout Leadership to show some Leadership
From Catholic and Enjoying It.
… Sadly it seems that National [Boy Scout Leadership] is considering trying to punt the matter to the unit level, with the chartering organization deciding on whether to admit homosexuals or not. Would be hard to run a National Jamboree with some troops keeping the traditional understanding of Morally Straight, and other troops indulging in “Gay Pride” displays. Proposed policy is at http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspxWe need to join together as Scouts and Adult leaders to stop the Membership Policy change. It would lead to situations similar to the Episcopal and Anglican Churches. To tell National to keep the current rules, contact info is here myscouting@scouting.org , the National Help Desk at 877-272-1910, or the BSA National Council operator at 972-580-2000. http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/BSAFoundation/ContactInformation.aspx
Make the phones ring off the walls, friends. Here are some numbers to try:
Select BSA Board Members:
* David L. Beck: (801) 240-1000
* R. Thomas Buffenbarger: (310) 967-4500
* Keith A. Clark: (717) 763-1121
* William F. “Rick” Cronk: (925) 283-7229
* John C. Cushman III: (904) 393-9020
* R. Michael Daniel: (412) 297-4989
* Jack D. Furst: (972) 982-8250
* T. Michael Goodrich: (205) 328-9445 ext. 200
* Earl G. Graves: (212) 242-8000
* Aubrey B. Harwell Jr.: (615) 244-1713
* Stephen Hemsley: (800) 328-5979
* Larry W. Kellner: (713) 468-4050
* Robert J. LaFortune: (918) 582-2981
* Joseph P. Landy: (212) 878-0600
* Francis R. McAllister: (406) 373-8700
* Scott D. Oki: (425) 454-2800
* Arthur F. Oppenheimer: (208) 343-4883
* Tico A. Perez: (407) 849-1235
* Robert H. Reynolds: (317) 231-7227
* Matthew K. Rose: (909) 386-4140
* Nathan O. Rosenberg: (949) 494-4553
* Roger M. Schrimp: (209) 526-3500
* Marshall M. Sloane: (781) 395-3000
* Rex W. Tillerson: (972) 444-1000
* David M. Weekley: (713) 659-8111
* Togo D. West, Jr.: (202) 775-1775
The important point to make is that the Boy Scouts is one of the few institutions left in America which tries to get boys to develop character and integrity, to have standards and to live up to them. No matter what, the Boy Scouts of America could be counted upon to do the right thing and not yield to any social pressure, and has thus far stood strong.
The BSA should not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Friday, February 1st, 2013 | | 10:41 am |
Accuracy In Media
Only posting a link. Well, several links. This is Ed Driscoll quoting John Nolte of :
This is at least the fifth time in recent years that NBC or MSNBC has gotten caught cooking the books, John Nolte writes at Big Journalism:
1. During last year’s presidential election Andrea Mitchell was caught manufacturing a Romney gaffe where none existed.
2. During last year’s GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.
3. In April of last year, the “Today Show” was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.
4. In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn’t look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.
And just today, NBC was caught in yet another malicious edit, this time to make Second Amendment advocates look as though they did something as heinous as heckling the heartsick father of a child who lost his six-year-old son in the Sandy Hook massacre. You can watch the full video and NBC’s science fiction adaptation side-by-side here.
You may ask why they practice such deception when it is certain to be discovered and exposed? The reason is simple psychology. First impressions are deeper impressions than corrections. I have a friend who saw the first version, the edited version, of the NBC agitprop, and it convinced him that the NRA were autistic when it came to normal social graces, heartless and fanatical. Upon seeing the second version, the unedited version, his first impression still persisted.
The second reason is that second thoughts tend to be tentative, and people tend not to believe that they are being lied to. Their own fairmindedness makes them gullible. Upon hearing two versions of any story, the natural reaction of any casual listener is to assume both versions are slanted to favor their side, and that the truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle. So if I falsely accuse an innocent group of ten people of wrongdoing, the average bystander, if he later hears my false accusation disputed, will assume that five or six of the people are guilty, rather than assume I lied and admit that he was deceived.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Thursday, January 31st, 2013 | | 10:26 pm |
| | 10:26 pm |
| | 10:26 pm |
| | 10:26 pm |
| | 10:26 pm |
| | 12:08 am |
Economics from Albion
It seems someone in England has read Adam Smith, and can explain with passion, logic, and conviction the basic truths of how the world works to those unacquainted to the world, to truth, or to logic. It is an astonishing and heartening performance. To hear common sense these days is as rare as hearing a Shakespearean sonnet.
The gentleman’s name is Daniel Hannan.
Read the rest of this entry » Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 | | 3:33 pm |
Wright’s Writing Corner: De Angelus
Today’s article on writing about Angels.
Excerpt:
The first Great Idea listed by Mortimer Adler happens to be Angels. So, today, I thought I would write about writing about angels.Some things are intrinsically hard to write about. Angels may be one of those things. I have almost never seen them done well in fiction. I have, however, read really stirring accounts of people who believe that they have seen real angels. While I have no way to judge the veracity of their stories, I can feel the power of the narrative. It come with a sense of awe and wonder.
Somehow, that sense almost never appears in depictions of angels in fantasy and science fiction. Depictions of angels in genre literature and media is almost universally negative. They are the real bad guys, while demons are misunderstood, emo, moody hunks. Or they are weak. Angels are rigid. Angels are hand-wringers. Angels are boring.
Only the ones who fall in love.emphasis there on the word fall.are even the slightest bit interesting. When they fall, then they get to be the cute scruffy hunks.
A perfect example of the way angels are often handled is Neil Gaiman’s Angel Islington from Neverwhere. I love Neverwhere, but Islington is just a villain, and not even a particularly inspiring one. Still, Islington does stand out in my mind as the archetypical example of that kind of wimpy evil angel that seems so popular now. One sees these angels in books and TV shows. They are also popular in a certain kind of movie.
Why?
Well….a number of reasons….
http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/275631.html
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. | | 1:54 pm |
Boy Scouts to Follow the Girl Scouts into the Abyss
Only posting a link, and hoping you will call your local scoutmaster. Get involved. Protest. Make some noise.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16739587-boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders?
If the Boy Scouts go, that will be the last institution left in America, outside the Church, which seeks to build young men of good character, rather than brainwash men into being narcissistic, selfish, self-indulgent whining boy-men.
Here is a quote from one who puts it well:
As the father of a soon-to-be Eagle Scout, I’ve taken part in summer camps, a canoeing trip in remote northern Ontario and several other overnight outings. I can attest that privacy is often at a minimum. Injecting the aura of possible sexual attraction would degrade the experience.
Boy Scouts range in age from 10 up to 18, and Cub Scouts are as young as 7. Boys become scouts in order to hike, camp, shoot guns and arrows and learn other outdoor skills.
And many parents choose the Boy Scouts to provide the environment for these activities precisely because, in an age awash in the wreckage of moral relativism, the Scouts have stood strong. Those parents who wish a different environment for their sons should join other groups or build their own.
The Boy Scouts are — or at least have been — a great organization that has done so much to help transform young boys into fine men and to serve America’s communities. Unfortunately, in the warped progressive understanding of diversity, all organizations must be the same. The Boy Scouts are a target of the Left precisely because they have, until now, upheld traditional moral standards.
Among the virtues set forth in the Scout Law, a scout is trustworthy and brave. The leaders of the Boy Scouts will betray those virtues if they cave to pressure and abandon their national policy. The Boy Scouts deserve better.
Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there. |
[ << Previous 20 -- Next 20 >> ]
|
johncwright