Sunday morning downer

Yeah, why not use Sunday, the penultimate day of the week, the day we relax and refresh ourselves and our psyches, the day we look upon the coming week as chock full of possibility and potential-fulfillment, as a day to pop balloons? Because let's face it: in the world of axioms and catchphrases meant to inspire, some are just plain wrong.

We try to inspire our kids by saying they can be anything they want to be. But they can't. There are too many people and too many things beyond their control working against them. We simply cannot, by force of will and the power of daydreams, be anything we want to be. Some teacher or interviewer simply won't like you. Your path will be blocked. That's life.

You can if you think you can, we are told. Well, refer back to what I just said. Because, no you can't. You can't be a walrus without a lot of miracles. Or a lot of expensive surgery. Or eating just far too much.

Never give up! But, you know, sometimes the smart thing is exactly the opposite. Sometimes you need to give up; sometimes it is the best thing to do. Sometimes it's the only thing to do: there are no other options. Nothing. There are times to cut bait.

Follow your dreams! Do we actually want to be walking the hallways of our schools in our underwear?

There, now. Still looking forward to the week?

The Simple Truth

There is only one thing which it takes courage to say and that is a truism.

- G. K. Chesterton

Chesterton had a way about him, didn't he? He could cut to the chase better than anyone, and today's quote is a prime example of that.

Why is it so hard to mouth a truism? All truth is built on things so obvious that no rational mind would reject them. Call them truisms, axioms, first principles, self evidence; it's all the same thing. And all reason is built upon them. All that an anti-abortion activist need point out is that human beings have human babies and all other truths about the pro-life issue fall squarely into place. For the rational mind, that is. That's why so many pro-abortion activists are simply shrill. They have no rational option to offer.

Still, I can see where speaking a truism can be difficult. There is a degree to which they appear too simple, and simplicity can be scary exactly because of that. Another great British Christian, Mr. C. S. Lewis, famously remarked that he was never less sure of an issue than right after he had successfully defended it. That makes sense to me. It's daunting to believe that's that's all there is to it, so to speak. There's a part of us which has trouble believing the great questions have simple answers. The questions appear, at a glance, too great to have answers so obvious.

That's where trust comes in. No matter how obvious something may be, scientifically, philosophically, or theologically, we have to take a leap of faith to fully accept it. We see what seem to be apparent complications in the world and have a tough time cutting through all that noise to understand truth. That is why, to employ Mr. Lewis again, we must be obstinate in belief. Until the proof is incontrovertible that our position is wrong, then believe it is right. There's no shame in that. Why ought anyone abandon a position merely because the wind might be blowing against them?

There's no point making the world a more complicated place that it may seem, and certainly no point complicating issues through nothing more than ignorance and human frailty. The truth is indeed out there. It can be expressed in the most simple ways as well. Take strength in that. Take that leap of faith.

There's Nothing Wrong With True Dogma

What, please tell us, is wrong with dogmatism? That may sound like a random question, but it was brought to our mind this morning by a quote we stumbled upon which, basically, (we would really rather not print the quote because it's long and, we're ready to argue, anyway, self-contradictory and insipid) encourages us to let go of our preconceptions in order that we may be able to become creative.

The first question which entered our minds was, where's the lack of dogmatism within such statements? It was simply another way of saying think outside the box, which itself is dogmatic, isn't it? Which brings us to the crux of the issue here: isn't every axiomatic statement dogmatic? As such, what's the point in even those flaccid sentiments if we aren't supposed to be dogmatic?

Yes, we know, they're talking about the sort of pig headed dogmatism which does indeed prevent the solving of problems and the possibility of greater understanding among peoples. But isn't there something more to that, really? Simply the fact that we've qualified the term 'dogmatism' with the derisive term 'pig headed' indicates that it is not the dogma which is the problem but, rather, the lack of reason on the part of such speakers. Surely those who are dogmatic in the cause of righteousness, whose dogma is true dogma, aren't wrong to insist on their points of view?

The fact is that everyone's dogmatic. Every single one of us. We all have axioms at the heart of our philosophies which guide us and are taken by us as simply true in themselves, which require no defense (as one isn't really possible) due to the fact they are reason itself. The question then becomes, are those defining points true in themselves?

So please don't ask me, as nothing more than a result of your dogma, to release my dogma. You'll have to do better than that if you really want me to listen to you. You'll have do something more in countering my dogma than rely on yours. Especially when what you assert fights against itself. That isn't useful dogma. But it is a recipe for a holy war.

First Principles

Much fascinating discussion can be had with an attempt at affirming the critical role reason and objectivity play in our political and social discussions. It all begins at the beginning, so to speak. One such starting point held by those against objective norms and conservative principles is a statement something like: nothing can be true for all times and all places.

That was a fun one back during sophomore year at university, when we discussed whether such a statement itself could be true for all times and places. But beyond such nonsense which such assertions naturally invite, it is clear that the statement cannot be true. For if it is, then there is an objective standard of right and wrong in that there is no right and wrong. And if it's not, then there must be standards of objectivity generally.

So where would we begin? Where would we seek this objectivity?

Without self-evidence, nothing can be proven; so says the British author and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis. He is quite right. Without axiomatic statements, things true in and of themselves, things so obviously right that no one can deny them and still call themselves rational, things which are Reason Itself, we can make no progress within the realms of morals, politics, law, or even simply treating the cranky old next door neighbor with charity. Without things which must be accepted on their own terms, which it would be social and personal suicide to deny, we cannot know what to do even in our daily lives.

It is in this realm that most questions can be answered. Abortion is wrong because human beings have human babies. Gay marriage is wrong because it is self evident that we are made to be male/female couples. Some extrapolation may be necessary as circumstances may dictate, but all morals begin with dogmatic statements.

This means that any decent consideration of what laws we must have must start with a reflection of how much they are in line with the first principles. Do they codify these axioms or disparage them? Do they encourage society to live within them or do they in fact deny their worth? Will proposed laws make us better or worse people?

It all starts from the right beginning. If we choose to start from somewhere else, we will end up who knows where. We might, by happy accident, arrive at our destination with good laws and a good society. But there's no point taking that chance when we have a handy road map, available to all who will have it, at our beck and call.

The Importance of Axioms

Much fascinating discussion can be had with an attempt at affirming the critical role reason and objectivity play in our political and social discussions. It all begins at the beginning, so to speak. One such starting point held by those against objective norms is a statement something like: nothing can be true for all times and all places.

That was a fun one back during sophomore year at university, when we discussed whether such a statement itself could be true for all times and places. But beyond such nonsense which the assertion invites, it is clear that the statement cannot be true. For if it is, then there is an objective standard of right and wrong in that there is no right and wrong. And if it's not, then there must be standards of objectivity generally.

So where would we begin? Where would we seek this objectivity?

Without self-evidence, nothing can be proven; so says the British author and apologist C. S. Lewis. He is quite right. Without axiomatic statements, things true in and of themselves, things so obviously right that no one can deny them and still call themselves rational, things which are Reason Itself, we can make no progress within the realms of morals, politics, law, and treating the next door neighbor with charity. Without things which must be accepted on their own terms, which it would be social and personal suicide to deny, we cannot know what to do even in our daily lives.

It is in this realm that most questions can be answered. Abortion is wrong because human beings have human babies. Gay marriage is wrong because it is self evident that we are made to be male/female couples. Some extrapolation may be necessary as circumstances may dictate, but all morals begin with dogmatic statements.

Which means that any decent consideration of what laws we must have must start with a reflection of how much they are in line with the first principles. Do they codify these axioms or disparage them? Do they encourage society to live within them or deny their worth? Will proposed laws make us better or worse people?

It all starts from the right beginning. If we choose to start from somewhere else, we will end up who knows where. We might, by happy accident, arrive at our destination with good laws and a good society. But there's no point taking that chance when we have a handy road map, available to all who will have it, at our beck and call.