http://johncwright.livejournal.com/ John C. Wright - LiveJournal.com Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:54 GMT LiveJournal / LiveJournal.com johncwright 942827 personal http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/4197308/942827 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/ 100 100 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730632.html Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:54 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730632.html <p>The fine fellows over at SfSignal ask the musical question</p> <blockquote><p>From Rick Riordan to Dan Simmons, the popularity of Gods, Goddesses and Mythology, especially but not limited to Classical Greco-Roman and Norse mythology seems as fresh as ever. What is the appeal and power of mythological figures, in and out of their normal time? What do they bring to genre fiction?</p></blockquote> <p>My answer, as well as the answers of SFF people less longwinded than I, are here:</p> <p><a href="http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2013/05/mind-meld-what-is-the-literary-appeal-of-gods-goddesses-and-myths/" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: #010101; font-family: verdana,arial,helv,helvetica; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #000007; font-family: tahoma,verdana,arial,helvetica; font-size: small;">http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2013/05/mind-meld-what-is-the-literary-appeal-of-gods-goddesses-and-myths/</span></span></a></p> <p>One of those answers is from my wife. Compare and contrast!</p> <p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/power-of-the-gods-at-sfsignal/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/power-of-the-gods-at-sfsignal/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> announcement public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730548.html Wed, 22 May 2013 02:50:48 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730548.html <p>I heard that Gene Wolfe was voted Grandmaster in this years Nebula. Congratulations! Long overdue!</p> <p>This is from <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/News/2012/12/gene-wolfe-named-sfwa-grand-master/" rel="nofollow">Locus Online News</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>The <a href="http://www.sfwa.org/" rel="nofollow">Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy Writers of America</a> named Gene Wolfe the recipient of the 2012 Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award. Wolfe has written many novels and short stories, and has previously won two <a href="http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula.html" rel="nofollow">Nebulas</a>, five <a href="http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/" rel="nofollow">World Fantasy Awards</a>, and six <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus.html" rel="nofollow">Locus Awards</a>, among others. Wolfe also won the World Fantasy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1996, and was inducted into the<a href="http://www.empsfm.org/at-the-museum/museum-features/science-fiction-hall-of-fame.aspx" rel="nofollow"> Science Fiction Hall of Fame</a> in 2007.</p> <p>The award, given for “lifetime achievement in science fiction and/or fantasy,” will be presented at the <a href="http://www.sfwa.org/nebula-awards/nebula-weekend/" rel="nofollow">48th Annual Nebula Awards Weekend </a>in San Jose, CA, May 16-19, 2013. Previous recipients of the award include such luminaries as Ursula K. Le Guin, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Connie Willis, Anne McCaffrey, and Joe Haldeman.</p></blockquote> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/grand-master-gene-wolfe/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/grand-master-gene-wolfe/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> greetings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730248.html Fri, 17 May 2013 04:32:42 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730248.html <p>I came across this while ego-surfing.</p> <blockquote> <h3><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjCXH1lZr16tyG7r.JhXs6Dsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130428120003AACPXo6" rel="nofollow">The Golden Age by John C. Wright?</a></h3> <div>I am reading this book for AP lit, but there is no sparknotes or anything for this book. Does anyone know any website or book or anything where they have the book summarized or analyzed by chapter? Thanks!</div> </blockquote> <p>So a teacher in advanced placement literature assigned one of my books in school? For kids to study? For credit??</p> <p>I am flattered, very much so, but, come on, folks! Did the schoolchildren run out of Dickens and Shakespeare to read?</p> <p>My work is fine, and I am proud of it, but is this the best use of the student&#8217;s limited time and attention span? How about anything on any topic by G.K. Chesterton instead? I seriously think Chesterton wrote at least one article on everything in the cosmos at one point.</p> <p>If you want to read good science fiction, how about HYPERION by Dan Simmons? Then force the young scholars to read CANTERBURY TALES by Chaucer and show the comparisons.</p> <p>Oh, maybe I should write up the cheat notes myself! That way, I can assure their accuracy, and be certain that my masterwork will be treated with the respect, nay, the groveling admiration it deserves!  I much choose my words carefully. Let me see&#8230;</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/wait-what/#more-8676" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/wait-what/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/05/wait-what/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> other public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730066.html Mon, 13 May 2013 01:58:38 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/730066.html <p>I never knew that Geo Orwell reviewed Jack Lewis. Here, as a historical curio, is the famous dystopia-writer&#8217;s view of Lewis&#8217; famous dystopia.</p> <a name="cutid1"></a><div class="ljcut" text="Read more..."> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">The Scientist Takes Over</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">review of C. S. Lewis, <b><i>That Hideous Strength</i></b> (1945) </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">by George Orwell </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;"><i>Manchester Evening News</i>, 16 August 1945</p> <p style="text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Reprinted as No. 2720 (first half) in <i>The Complete Works of George Orwell</i>, edited by Peter Davison, Vol. XVII (1998), pp. 250–251</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">On</span> the whole, novels are better when there are no miracles in them. Still, it is possible to think of a fairly large number of worth-while books in which ghosts, magic, second-sight, angels, mermaids, and what-not play a part.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">Mr. C. S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength” can be included in their number – though, curiously enough, it would probably have been a better book if the magical element had been left out. For in essence it is a crime story, and the miraculous happenings, though they grow more frequent towards the end, are not integral to it.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">In general outline, and to some extent in atmosphere, it rather resembles G. K. Chesterton’s “The Man Who Was Thursday.”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">Mr. Lewis probably owes something to Chesterton as a writer, and certainly shares his horror of modern machine civilisation (the title of the book, by the way, is taken from a poem about the Tower of Babel) and his reliance on the “eternal verities” of the Christian Church, as against scientific materialism or nihilism.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">His book describes the struggle of a little group of sane people against a nightmare that nearly conquers the world. A company of mad scientists – or, perhaps, they are not mad, but have merely destroyed in themselves all human feeling, all notion of good and evil – are plotting to conquer Britain, then the whole planet, and then other planets, until they have brought the universe under their control.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">All superfluous life is to be wiped out, all natural forces tamed, the common people are to be used as slaves and vivisection subjects by the ruling caste of scientists, who even see their way to conferring immortal life upon themselves. Man, in short, is to storm the heavens and overthrow the gods, or even to become a god himself.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">There is nothing outrageously improbable in such a conspiracy. Indeed, at a moment when a single atomic bomb – of a type already pronounced “obsolete” – has just blown probably three hundred thousand paople to fragments, it sounds all too topical. Plenty of people in our age do entertain the monstrous dreams of power that Mr. Lewis attributes to his characters, and we are within sight of the time when such dreams will be realisable.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">His description of the N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments), with its world-wide ramifications, its private army, its secret torture chambers, and its inner ring of adepts ruled over by a mysterious personage known as The Head, is as exciting as any detective story.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">It would be a very hardened reader who would not experience a thrill on learning that The Head is actually – however, that would be giving the game away.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">One could recommend this book ureservedly if Mr. Lewis had succeeded in keeping it all on a single level. Unfortunately, the supernatural keeps breaking in, and it does so in rather confusing, undisciplined ways. The scientists are endeavouring, among other things, to get hold of the body of the ancient Celtic magician Merlin, who has been buried – not dead, but in a trance – for the last 1,500 years, in hopes of learning from him the secrets of pre-Christian magic.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">They are frustrated by a character who is only doubtfully a human being, having spent part of his time on another planet where he has been gifted with eternal youth. Then there is a woman with second sight, one or two ghosts, and various superhuman visitors from outer space, some of them with rather tiresome names which derive from earlier books of Mr. Lewis’s. The book ends in a way that is so preposterous that it does not even succeed in being horrible in spite of much bloodshed.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify; word-spacing: 0pt;">Much is made of the fact that the scientists are actually in touch with evil spirits, although this fact is known only to the inmost circle. Mr. Lewis appears to believe in the existence of such spirits, and of benevolent ones as well. He is entitled to his beliefs, but they weaken his story, not only because they offend the average reader’s sense of probability but because in effect they decide the issue in advance. When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. However, by the standard of the novels appearing nowadays this is a book worth reading.</p> </blockquote> </div> <p>=============================================================================================================<br /> Mr. Orwell (or mr. Blair, take your pick) makes interesting comments, but only one really betrays the typical limitations of his secular philosophy: &#8220;When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. &#8221;</p> <p>As a man who struggled against evil, he should have known better, even if he sought no supernatural aid.</p> <p>Come now: is Milton&#8217;s PARADISE LOST without drama? We know Adam is going to win, don&#8217;t we? He has supernatural aid in his stuggle against the devil, doesn&#8217;t he? Or how about little Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom? The One Ring would not have come to him if he were not <i>meant </i>to have it. That means a mysterious supernatural fate is assuring him of victory in his struggle against Sauron, right? Ergo there is no drama in the story. The miracle of Gandalf&#8217;s resserection, the miracle of Aragorn raising and commanding the Hosts of the Dead&#8211;all this robs the tale of interest, right? There is no drama in the ILIAD, look at all those gods peopling the tale; and none in CINDERELLA, because how can a girl with a fairy godmother lose?</p> <p>Bah. What utter humbug Orwell says. Some people suffer from fairy-story depravation, or something, and hence do not know what real life is about.</p> <p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2006/10/orwell-and-lewis/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2006/10/orwell-and-lewis/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> fancies musings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729749.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:57 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729749.html <p>An article from The American Culture website, touching a theme I have more than once addressed:</p> <div style="margin-left: 40px;">In <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2246553/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">a recent article on “The New Backlash Against Casual Sex,”</a> Slate “Double X”  blogger Jessica Grose reacts with abject revulsion toward recent events manifesting what she sees as the “fervent conservatism” of the current decade. These atrocities include a new book called <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592405614?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=karnickoncult-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=1592405614" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">I Don’t Care About Your Band</a></em><em>,</em> in which feminist writer Julie Klausner documents her disappointments with casual sex.</div> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">Espying a sinister pattern behind these events, Grose bemoans what she characterizes as a horrid resurgence of puritanism that has become a common attitude among young females and is somehow perverting even once-sensible feminists such as Ms. Klausner:</p> <blockquote> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">Domestic bliss is now the cultural ideal for young women, which is why Lori Gottlieb haranguing women <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2243179/" rel="nofollow">to settle for Mr. Good Enough in her new book <em>Marry Him </em>hit such a raw nerve</a>. Cue the “spinster panic” articles, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19marriage.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">like this one from the <em>New York Times</em> in January</a>, which talks about how successful beautiful women are “victims of a role reversal” that will leave them single because men aren’t making as much money as they are anymore.</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">At the start of this decade, we have thoroughly internalized these recent conservative cultural messages about the importance of marriage: “73 percent of women born between 1977 and 1989 place a high priority on marriage,” <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704751304575079281941642528.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">writes Hannah Seligson in the<em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>. If what Gen Y wants is marriage, then it follows that feelings about sex would be more complicated—and in some cases, deeply judgmental. A Princeton freshman wrote an op-ed last week about why her friend should not be allowed to <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/02/22/25251/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">claim rape after a night of highly inebriated sex</a>, the implicit message being that she should not have been having inebriated sex in the first place. A <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8515592.stm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">poll taken last month in London showed</a> that women were less likely to forgive a rape victim than men were.</p> </blockquote> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">Isn’t that just awful? Women want to get married, think it’s not rape if a friend gets drunk, has sex, and then regrets it, and find they can’t attract many men who earn less money than they do. Gee, whatever happened to liberty?</p> <p>[...] But the grotesque crassness of the past decade may well have brought about at least one very good consequence: the tawdry reality behind the ideals of orgasm-obsessed feminists such as Grose has been laid bare for all to see and judge &#8230;</p> <p>You may read the whole thing <a href="http://stkarnick.com/culture/2010/04/27/regrets-feminists-have-had-a-few/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/04/still-having-promiscuous-sex-with-in-a-consequence-free-environment/#more-1406" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/04/still-having-promiscuous-sex-with-in-a-consequence-free-environment/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/04/still-having-promiscuous-sex-with-in-a-consequence-free-environment/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729506.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:56 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729506.html <p>I asked <a href="http://robertjwizard.livejournal.com/" rel="nofollow"> Robert J Wizard</a>,  our Dark Overlord, his opinion on this question, which I would like to throw open to any other reader who cares to comment: &#8220;what is it about Socratic philosophy (or about all philosophy) that makes it start with pragmatic questions and end with mythical visions?&#8221;</p> <p>His comment:</p> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> <p>As far as Socratic/Platonic philosophy goes I would say, tentatively, that it is because of his epistemology, his Forms and the Form of the Good. It lent a general direction to how he tackled all problems. And, practically, Plato was reacting against the materialists of his time.</p> <p>That is an answer off the top of my head.</p> <p>Now as far as philosophy in general. I would say with a good degree of certainty that they follow a historical pattern. And it is somewhat contained in my initial comment. First they try to ground everything naturalistically. Then they shoot each others theories full of the holes they do contain, and then the next wave of philosophers comes in and states it is all arbitrary, there is no grounding for knowledge for reality and therefore none for ethics. Then the field dissolves itself into babbling.</p> <p>After some time of this after the destruction and dust settles people go back to the myths or whatever you choose to call them. Christianity certainly worked better (speaking pragmatically) than what was running the Greco-Roman world that caused it to die. They work better (speaking pragmatically) than what passes for &#8220;philosophy&#8221; these days. One exception IMHO &#8211; like I needed to point that out.&#8221;</p> </div> <p>Your answer off the top of your head is as good as answers I have heard in school.</p> <p>As for me, I wonder if it is because of the nature of the subject matter, or, if you will, the nature of reality.</p> <p>Things that we can define closely and deal with daily are based on and rooted in (and take life from) things we cannot define well, and have a more abstract, perhaps even eternal character.</p> <p>Philosophy is like a ladder leading from earth to higher realms. Most people can agree what distinguishes a good hamburger from a bad one: the bad one is rotten, smelly, unsightly, no good to eat, not appealing to the taste, no contributing to the health and nutrition of the body. Pretty clear, no? It only gets less clear when we start looking at the difference between taste and health, and contemplate things that taste good but are not good for us, and then we start contemplating health in the abstract, and to answer questions about that, we have to talk about the good of man, body and soul, and suddenly or slowly we find ourselves in realms where metaphors and myths are actually clearer and better than definitions and propositions.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/nature-language-and-supernature/#more-1428" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/nature-language-and-supernature/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/nature-language-and-supernature/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728853.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:55 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728853.html <p><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; font-size: xx-small;"><em><strong></strong></em></span>An anecdote, related to an earlier discussion of divorce statistics.</p> <p>Once upon a time, I was sitting at a table with eight friends.</p> <p>There were three sets. Set one had one member: an unmarried male. Set two had six members: three couples married to each other, with no divorces. Set three had one member: a young lady who had been married six times, and divorced four times. (She was currently married, and had been widowed once.)</p> <p>Eight people and four divorces meant that the divorce rate at that table was FIFTY PERCENT. When one one young lady got up and went to the kitchen for a coke, the divorce rate at the table was ZERO. When she returned, drink in hand, the divorce rate rose to FIFTY PERCENT.</p> <p>My conclusion: Coke has been a disaster for the divorce rate!</p> <p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/an-example-of-statistics-in-action/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/an-example-of-statistics-in-action/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729091.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:55 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/729091.html <p>A reader with the unromantic name of  &#8220;<a href="http://theobrominelove.livejournal.com/" rel="nofollow">theobrominelove&#8221;</a> takes me to task for my recent essay <a href="http://johncwright.livejournal.com/333124.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>here </strong></a>on the failure to socialize the males. I welcome the criticism. Hat in hand, I will answer as honestly and earnestly as I may, and leave you, dear readers, to judge between us. &#8216;s bold comments are in bold.</p> <p><strong>“You seem to say that as chastity and gallantry are scorned, men do not know any better than to behave badly towards women.” </strong></p> <p>I don’t think I said anything about “not knowing any better” one way or the other. I said boys not taught self-command will grow up to be self-indulgent; boys not taught decency will grow up indecent.</p> <p>In all these remarks, let us be clear, I am talking about general tendencies, not inevitabilities. It goes without saying that there will always be exceptions.</p> <p><strong>“And women, without the weapon of chastity and the allure of the mysterious, must be victims.”</strong></p> <p>More or less. Girls not taught to value chastity (in themselves or in potential mates) will tend to become women who undervalue it, or even despise it.</p> <p><strong>“They are thus doomed to loveless, unromantic marriages &#8211; or worse, the dreaded divorce. Doomed to sexual abuse. Doomed to never be respected and treasured.”</strong></p> <p>I don’t think I said anything about loveless, unromantic marriages.</p> <p><strong>“Because men, given freely available sex by promiscuous women, will not see the need to bless any woman with the virtues of respect or love.”</strong></p> <p><strong>“In sum, in the sane society, your young men do not get to engage in sexual reproduction until and unless they vow eternal fidelity to their mates, and provide support for the offspring resulting from sexual reproduction. This encourages a romantic attitude toward marriage rather than a merely pragmatic one. If you are going to be chained for life to your mate, it were better far for you if you love her, and if your love is not merely fair-weather infatuation.”</strong></p> <p><strong>“In other words, you say that men should not be held accountable for the abuse and violence they perpetuate.”</strong></p> <p>I believe I said the exact opposite.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/socializing-the-males-revisited-is-hefner-a-ladys-friend-or-ladykiller/#more-1433" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/socializing-the-males-revisited-is-hefner-a-ladys-friend-or-ladykiller/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/socializing-the-males-revisited-is-hefner-a-ladys-friend-or-ladykiller/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728677.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:54 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728677.html <div> <p>Part of an ongoing conversation. I regret I have not time to answer in more detail: I can only give a summary of my conclusions without laying out the steps.</p> <p><a href="http://artimaeus.livejournal.com/profile" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif" alt="[info]" width="17" height="17" /></a><a href="http://artimaeus.livejournal.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>artimaeus</strong></a> writes:</p> </div> <div style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;In a nutshell, the traditional sexual mores glorify chastity, abstinence, and virginity because it is in the interests of both a woman and her neighbors that the man who gets her pregnant doesn’t leave her to raise her children alone. Marriage is a device to keep the father close by, increasing the odds that the children will grow up healthy and well-adjusted. People recognized that childbirth was the inevitable result of sex, and so sexual acts were discouraged, often demonized, until the man was committed to the woman and her children.&#8221;</div> <div><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></div> <div>My comment:  Agreed, albeit there are other reasons, aside from this, to support monogamy, such as, for example, to prevent the exploitation of women by ruthless sexual predators.</div> <div><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></div> <div style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;Today, you’ll find the game has changed. Modern technology has undone the truth that once made enforcing chastity so important&#8230;.&#8221;</div> <div><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></div> <div>If paternity-identification were the only argument in favor of chastity and monogamy, yes, modern technology has made sterility (including the temporary sterility prophylactics provide) and infanticide easier and cheaper.</div> <div><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></div> <div style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;And this is not a bad thing&#8230;The blame lies squarely with the person too dumb to wear a condom&#8230;.a woman can now gauge a man’s character in the bedroom&#8230;&#8221;</div> <div><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></div> <div>This is a gratuitous assertion. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied. I would say it is a very bad thing indeed.</div> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/cads-and-dads/#more-1510" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/cads-and-dads/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/cads-and-dads/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728179.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:53 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728179.html <p><em>Part of an ongoing discussion. A reader with the impressively Vikingish name of <strong>Rolf Andreassen </strong> who blogs at the even more impressively Vikingishly named <a href="http://ynglingasaga.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">ynglingasaga.wordpress.com</a> provides an answer to some comments and questions of mine concerning the new standards (I use the word advisedly, if not ironically) concerning love, romance, and chastity.  The conversation also reaches to topics of loyalty and chivalry. </em></p> <p><em>I have some questions I hope to ask Mr. Andraessen about his curious answer when time permits. But for now, I submit it without further comment here for your edification and reflection:</em></p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/one-answer-to-a-question-about-chastity/#more-1572" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/one-answer-to-a-question-about-chastity/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/one-answer-to-a-question-about-chastity/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728472.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:53 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/728472.html <p>In this space, in recent days, there has been a discussion of male chastity and chivalry, and the proper respect due to the fairer sex. Some readers, perhaps those of a feminist bent, objected that to expect chastity from males was an insult to women, or a type of oppression. Other readers, perhaps of an opposite opinion which we might call masculinist, objected that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming, and that I should not restrict my hard words to the men alone. Some readers said I was a racist.</p> <p>Being a creature crippled by philosophy, who must crawl from one logical and well-established statement to the next, I have not wings of fancy to leap from conclusion to airy conclusion, and in none of these cases can my slow and groping mind see the connection between my argument and the counter-argument presented by my worthy opponents. I simply do not see what the one has to do with the other: the comments do not seem in these cases to be on the same topic as the topic under discussion.</p> <p>Such convulsions of mutual incomprehension are to be expected in discussions where the axioms of the two sides are so far apart. There is some basic, unspoken assumption I am making that is invisible to my honorable opposition; there is likewise some basic, unspoken assumption my opponents, both feminist and masculinist, make which is invisible to me.</p> <p>In an earnest effort to unearth this assumption, let me ask a single question. It is my hope that <a href="http://artimaeus.livejournal.com/profile" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif" alt="[info]" width="17" height="17" /></a><a href="http://artimaeus.livejournal.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>artimaeus</strong></a> will read and answer, but  I open the question to the general public, and invite any who wish to weigh in to answer.</p> <p>Given the nature of the male of the homo sapiens, and the nature of reality, it is likely for him to copulate with a woman to whom he is not married without a feeling of contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference?<br /> <p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/a-question-about-chastity/#more-1537" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/a-question-about-chastity/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/05/a-question-about-chastity/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727915.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:52 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727915.html <p>Part of an ongoing conversation. Dr. Rolf Andreassen, with whom we have been discussing the morality (or otherwise) of monogamy, makes the following comment. My questions below refer to this and also to previous comments by the good doctor. I solicit answers not just from him, but from any reader who cares to comment.</p> <blockquote><p>As for sex, I haven’t said it’s relative at all; I have merely said that I wish to draw the line in a different place from Mr Wright’s lifelong monogamy. The actual rule may still be absolute. However, since I do not have full knowledge of the morality, I’m much more inclined to let consenting adults work out their own damnation than I am when children, who cannot meaningfully consent, are involved.</p></blockquote> <p>You define two categories of moral behavior. The first category is known moral absolutes, such as the rule against child abuse. The second category includes those things where your lack of full knowledge inclines you to defer to the opinion of the individual involved. You imply that the lack of informed consent on the part of the child is one significant consideration.</p> <p>If I have not misunderstood your position, the rule against child abuse is an absolute in your philosophy, but the rule against unchastity is a matter of opinion where reasonable men can differ.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/additional-questions-on-the-question-of-chastity/#more-1581" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/additional-questions-on-the-question-of-chastity/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/additional-questions-on-the-question-of-chastity/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727803.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:51 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727803.html <p><strong>A NEW SCIENCE</strong></p> <p>I propose the study of a new science, to be called Sophomoronology. It will investigate the pathology of philosophy, that is, this new science will study the causes and reasons behind the death of philosophy.</p> <p>I do not propose merely a psychological study of why some folks believe, or say they believe, so many ideas that are so manifestly lacking in reason, common sense, and logic. Psychology is not our province here. Our province here is to identify the incentives which make it advantageous for a person to adopt and defend a certain philosophy. It is a study of the economics behind the growth and failure of philosophical schools, or, to use an older and clearer term, it is a study of temptations.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/sophomoronology/#more-1594" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/sophomoronology/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/sophomoronology/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727326.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:49 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727326.html <p>More on the same topic:</p> <p>A learned reader asks that since technology reduces the risk of pregnancy, the influence of conception-morality on sex-morality is lessened, why do I conclude that  sex-morality  can nonetheless be completely deduced from conception-morality?</p> <p>He asks for clarification, which I would be glad to provide, if I could. I fear my powers of description, in the limited space here, are unequal to the task. Let me at least offer a summation of the argument, which can be, as needed, drawn out in more rigorous detail at a time when time permits.</p> <p>I hold that morality is a matter of duty, and that thought is a matter of logic.</p> <p>Logically, sexual reproduction is a member of the category sexual reproduction. While a sterile woman, or a woman seeking temporary sterility via contraception, can have herself personally a different motive for engaging in the act of sexual reproduction than the final cause of sexual reproduction, I submit that the nature of the sexual reproductive act is such that it has an innate final cause independent of the personal motives of those engaging in it. The final cause of the sexual reproductive act is sexual reproduction. The result of sexual reproduction is the reproduction of the species, namely, the birth of a baby.</p> <p>Once reason why this point is difficult to argue is that &#8220;sex is sex&#8221; seems to me to be a tautology. While the motive for the sexual act, namely, a desire for short term pleasure, and the reality of the sexual act, namely, the reproductive act, can be divided in speech, in reality this is merely two ways of describing one thing. The two ways are the motives of the individuals and the final cause of the act in and of itself.</p> <p>Morally, I submit that it is both a matter of duty and of mere prudence when engaging in any act to make reasonable provision for the effects and side-effects of the act.</p> <p>In the case of the sexual act, it is both a matter of duty and prudence not to encourage any emotion or passion which is inappropriate, inapt, rude, wrong, dishonorable, or false-to-facts to the reality.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/water-can-wet-you-and-fire-can-burn/#more-1602" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/water-can-wet-you-and-fire-can-burn/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/water-can-wet-you-and-fire-can-burn/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727027.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:48 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727027.html <p>Mechanical cause, which is sometimes called efficient cause or historical cause, is the description of an event, an object being moved, in terms of pressures and magnitudes of physical motions and forces acting on the event. Final cause is a description of an event, an actor acting, in terms of the end, purpose, intention, or that for the sake of which the event is done. A mechanical cause looks to the past, and asking what bumped into what to make the event; a final cause looks to the future, and asks what the actor feared or desired or anticipated.</p> <p>In a recent discussion in this space, the question arose concerning final cause versus mechanical cause, and two objections were raised. The first, if I understood it, was that final cause, properly so called, did not exist because all final causes could be reduced to a recitation of mechanical causes. The other was that final causes are prescientific.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/final-cause-or-hammers-and-letters-in-a-lifeless-universe/#more-1620" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/final-cause-or-hammers-and-letters-in-a-lifeless-universe/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/final-cause-or-hammers-and-letters-in-a-lifeless-universe/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727174.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:48 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/727174.html <p>In my essay on <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/sophomoronology" rel="nofollow">Sophomoronology</a>, I offered that the ideals, or the view of life, or the sophistry collage (I cannot call it a philosophy) I there called &#8216;Intellectualism&#8217; included an emotional allure or intellectual addiction to death and images of death.</p> <p>Here, as an exhibit in my argument, let me present this article by animal-rights advocate and pro-infanticide Carthegenian anti-ethics Ethicist Peter Singer, entitled <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/" rel="nofollow">Should This Be the Last Generation? </a>In which he asks the question that only seems a conundrum worth pondering to sensitive, pallid, sickly, and trembling minds which must have some intellectual equivalent to addiction to laudanum:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?</p> <p>Wow! What an interesting question! Oh, wait, no, excuse me. I mean stupid. What a stupid question. The question is stupid both on a logical and a emotional level.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/exhibit-b/#more-1609" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/exhibit-b/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/exhibit-b/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726675.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:47 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726675.html <p>Part of an ongoing discussion of final versus mechanical causes:</p> <p>Dr. Andreassen says:  &#8220;Mr Wright’s contention, if I understand it correctly, is that we can directly perceive that these things are not atoms; it is, to coin a phrase, obvious.&#8221;</p> <p>That is not my contention. My contention is this:</p> <p>There are two kinds of statements.</p> <ol> <li>Empirical statements are statements of physical fact, without any interpretation. They are statements about objects.</li> <li>Rational or ideal statements are statements about conceptual fact, and include concepts that describe the relation of thoughts or symbols to objects.</li> </ol> <p>For example, a billiard can be heavy or light, round or oblate, but a billiard ball cannot be true or false, moral or immoral, efficient or inefficient, logical or illogical, because these terms all describe the relationship between thoughts, words, symbols and human actions to objects. A word can be false if it does not refer to the object to which it pretends to refer; a sentence can be illogical if the symbols do not follow the pattern of coherence and consistency that objects and concepts follow, and so on.</p> <p>In physics, all apparently complex empirical phenomena can be reduced to simple statements of Mass, Length, Time, Temperature, Amount, Current, Candlepower. They can be completely described in empirical statements.</p> <p>Further, all empirical phenomena can be described completely in terms of mechanical causation, that is to say, a description of the external forces moving an inanimate object.</p> <p>No statement which contains only measurements of Mass, Length, Time, Temperature, Amount, Current, Candlepower can (without slyly or overtly introducing another statement concerning the meaning of these things) convey any information about meaning or purpose or final cause of an event.</p> <p>Statements about meaning, rational or ideal statements, cannot be described completely without some reference, direct or indirect, to final cause, that is to say, the purpose or the &#8220;for the sake of which&#8221; of an object or event.</p> <p>Ergo, since statements of the first type must contain no reference to final causes, and statements of the second type must contain reference to final causes, statements of the first type cannot be reduced to statement of the second type.</p> <p>Expressed as a syllogism:</p> <ol> <li>Statements of physics are only empirical, defining mechanical causes and quantities.</li> <li>Statements of meaning are non-empirical, defining final causes and qualities.</li> <li>Therefore statements of the second type are not statements of the first type.</li> </ol> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/debating-with-the-tin-woodman-of-oz/#more-1622" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/debating-with-the-tin-woodman-of-oz/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/debating-with-the-tin-woodman-of-oz/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726220.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:46 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726220.html <p>The recent movie (which I have not seen, and which does not sound like the type of movie anyone could beguile me to see, even if I were bribed with shiny yellow gold) called SEX IN THE CITY II apparently had a scene in it where one of the sex-crazed comediennes strolling the streets in the Middle East in Daisy Duke short pants (or something like that&#8211;absolutely no attempt will be made in this screed to be accurate) is accosted, or menaced, by a throng of Muslims or their garbage-bag wearing wives; whereupon the sex-crazed comedienne makes a St. Crispin&#8217;s Day style speech in favor of sexual liberation, flourishing condoms.</p> <p>The impression I got is that this offended and shocked the Leftist elite.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/feminist-multiculturalism-and-the-hungry-bus-wheels/#more-1653" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/feminist-multiculturalism-and-the-hungry-bus-wheels/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/feminist-multiculturalism-and-the-hungry-bus-wheels/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726375.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:46 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/726375.html <p>Part of an ongoing discussion.</p> <p>In recent days in this space, we have been discussing radical materialism, which is the metaphysical theory that the ultimate grounds of being are nothing but matter in motion. Let us ponder the following hypothetical question.</p> <p><em>If the cosmos is a machine and nothing put a machine, something like a clockwork but on an immense scales, and if everything, including all non-empirical statements, is merely the outcome of the actions of the mainsprings, wheels, gears and cogs of the cosmic clockwork, then a sufficiently cunning workingman could move certain gears and wheels and change the outcome, with the ease with which a watchmaker could loosen a spring or add a gear and make his clock run slow, or make his clock count an extra hour every day. If the workingman can change the outcome of this cosmic clockwork we all inhabit, and if the truth-value of all non-empirical and metaphysical statements is merely one outcome of the cosmic clockwork, then the workingman can change the truth-value of all non-empirical and metaphysical statements by changing the clockwork. </em></p> <p><em>Somewhere there is a set of atoms in a certain configuration that makes it the case that materialism is true. Could in theory a workingman move one group of atoms from the positive to the negative so that it was no longer the case that materialism was true? </em></p> <p>In order for this question to make sense, we must put it in context. To put it in context, let us review the arguments for and against radical materialism.</p> <p>(I am not using the word “radical” here to mean the materialists kill like Che and wear a red beret. I mean that the proposition that all things all the way to their roots are merely matter in motion is radical, whereas a theory that most but not all things not all the way to their roots are matter in motion is materialism that is not radical.)</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/reprogramming-metaphysics/#more-1642" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/reprogramming-metaphysics/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/reprogramming-metaphysics/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725896.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:45 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725896.html <p>In a recent discussion in this space, which I, unfortunately, am finding I have insufficient time to spend discussing in proper and thorough detail, I issued the following challenge to not just the materialist I was debating, but to any any all materialists reading these word who might care to comment:</p> <blockquote><p>Is there ANYTHING ANYWHERE that ANYONE uses empiricism for other than ARGUMENTS ABOUT EMPIRICAL FACTS? Is there anyone anywhere who can even imagine, even as a joke, what proving a non-empirical fact about law, or ethics, or mathematics, or economics, or theology, or any other nonempirical discipline using only empirical arguments would even mean?</p></blockquote> <p>My question in other words asks whether radical materialism holds any non-empirical statements to be true or knowable or both? I assume the answer would be a simple negative: Hume says only empirical statements can be known and confirmed.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism/#more-1665" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725723.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:44 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725723.html <p>A new branch of an ongoing conversation.</p> <p>One reader (who does not read very carefully, alas) writes in saying &#8220;I know that our host is advocating a Ghost in the Machine.&#8221;</p> <p>Oddly enough, that is not what I am advocating, nor even remotely close to it. During this conversation, and all previous conversations I can recall on like topics, no materialist has been curious enough to discover what my position was, preferring instead to rely on telepathy to intuit what I thought, and then inform me what I thought whether or not I was aware of it &#8212; which is, ironically, in keeping with their metaphysics. The only drawback is telepathy is a bit of a hit-or-miss proposition.</p> <p>As far as I can assess, my position is closer to Kant or Aristotle than it is to Descartes, but contains nuances differentiating me from them.</p> <p>I would state my position in four conclusions: Methodological Dualism, Conceptual Objectivity, Immaterialism, Legality.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/methological-dualism-conceptual-objectivity-immaterialism-legality/#more-1672" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/methological-dualism-conceptual-objectivity-immaterialism-legality/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/methological-dualism-conceptual-objectivity-immaterialism-legality/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725098.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:43 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725098.html <p>I have spent time I dare not spare pursuing this topic, but hope ever springs eternal from the human breast that I can someday actually explain my position. It is not the disagreements that are based on a correct understanding of what I said that puzzle me, it is disagreements that merely repeat points I had thought were already covered.</p> <p>But, looking back, I realize journal posts on the Internet can only scrape the surface of what are by their nature very deep topics indeed, requiring a precision of thought and a technical vocabulary tedious or impossible to agree upon in a format like this.</p> <p>For example, I take for granted that most educated readers know the difference between final cause and mechanical cause, or have read my (or someone&#8217;s) explanation of the difference. Not so!</p> <p>I take for granted that any sane person knows the difference between a word and the object the word represents. Perish the thought!</p> <p>I take for granted that educated people read Aristotle, preferably in the Greek. Ho ho and ha ha and surely you don&#8217;t think the education establishment wants their technopeons able to reason each man for himself?! Nope, all modern education wants is men proficient in technical specialties able to service that great blind machinery we call the modern world, and woe betide he who ponders the whys and wherefores thereof! No Aristotle here!</p> <p>I am beginning to wonder if I am being absurdly obscure and technical, but I can only confess the ideas seem simple enough to me.</p> <p>Let me try to explain:</p> <p>There is a difference between materialism and radical materialism.<p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-as-a-category-of-final-causation/#more-1678" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-as-a-category-of-final-causation/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-as-a-category-of-final-causation/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725270.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:43 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/725270.html <p>The only answer I have gotten so far to the question &#8220;<a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/06/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism/" rel="nofollow">what experiment proves materialism to be true</a>&#8221; is the proposal that brain scans or ingesting alcohol proves that some tentative measure of correlation of some sort that might some day show that material brain conditions influence or affect states of consciousness.</p> <p>Full answer is here: <a href="http://ynglingasaga.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/further-argument-with-john-wright/" rel="nofollow">http://ynglingasaga.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/further-argument-with-john-wright/</a></p> <p>This answer is so woefully inadequate that it cannot even be mocked with the mockery it deserves.</p> <p>From the premise &#8220;drinking alcohol can effect your powers of concentration&#8221; the conclusion &#8220;all non-empirical statements of any kind whatsoever in this or any possible universe, including statements about abstract concepts such as justice,  can be reduced to descriptions of the mechanical causes of eternal pressures affecting brain atom motions, so that what seems to be a statement about justice is merely a report of a person reciting his own internal brain-atom-motion algorithm of that part of the cortex that reacts to encoding on the topic of justice, etc.&#8221; does not follow.</p> <p>Our Viking friend simply assumes that we would all would agree that an hallucination of the smell of a rose caused by electrochemical stimulation of the brain is the same in every way as the scent of a real rose smelled with a real nose in reality. The map is the territory, the word is the thing it represents, justice is not an abstract concept, it is a mere report or recitation of the position of brain atoms in the cortex.</p> <p>Not only does this not follow, but if we substitute the word &#8216;materialism&#8217; for the word &#8216;justice&#8217; we are left with a self-refuting statement: materialism is the proposition that materialism is not a concept, it is merely a report or recitation of the position of brain atoms in the cortex.</p> <p>The real answer, of course, is that materialism is a metaphysical proposition, not an empirical or scientific conclusion of any observation or experiment.</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism-is-get-drunk/#more-1680" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism-is-get-drunk/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/the-experiment-that-proves-empiricism-is-get-drunk/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/724883.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:35 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/724883.html <p>Part of an ongoing conversation.</p> <p>&#8220;Is not one of the central points, which our arguments circle, the assertion by non-materialists that humans have free will? And if they do, then how can they not break the deterministic laws of physics?&#8221;</p> <p>Good question, but it is based on a false assumption.</p> <p>The assumption is that the laws of physics describe something other than physics. The laws of physics describe the mechanical causes of an action, how it moved, to what degree, by how many quanta of a quantifiable magnitude. Free will is a category used to distinguish decisions (human action) from physical reactions (billiard balls colliding).</p> <p><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-and-physics-no-conflict/#more-1693" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-and-physics-no-conflict/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/free-will-and-physics-no-conflict/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p> reasonings public 0 http://johncwright.livejournal.com/724662.html Sun, 12 May 2013 20:21:33 GMT http://johncwright.livejournal.com/724662.html <p>Part of an Ongoing Conversation:</p> <p><em>&#8220;If your argument is that it is immoral to father a child out of wedlock and leave that child and its mother to their own devices, I do not believe you will find anyone here to argue against that fact. However, what happens if I and my sweetie are both 80, well past child bearing age? </em></p> <p><em><p><a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/can-sarah-and-st-elizibeth-fornicate-licitly/#more-1718" rel="nofollow">Read the rest of this entry &raquo;</a></p><p><small>Originally published at <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/can-sarah-and-st-elizibeth-fornicate-licitly/" rel="nofollow">John C. Wright&#039;s Journal</a>. Please leave any <a href="http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/can-sarah-and-st-elizibeth-fornicate-licitly/#comments" rel="nofollow">comments</a> there.</small></p></em> reasonings public 0