gmgauthier

Zero Energy Vic, and his atheistic origin

I am beginning a multi-part response to Jordan Peterson's statement of political doctrine. He calls it "conservative". But, really, it's just Lockean Liberalism.

Wherein I take issue with his unqualified defense of individual sovereignty. It's bollocks, us the Brits might put it.

George Orwell rallies the spirit of the English at a time of extreme crisis.

I dissect a discussion about science and faith between Bishop Barron and the Weinsteins.

A short reaction to a segment from a John Anderson interview with John Lennox.

Peter Boghossian's "Kendipalooza" finally gets to the heart of the matter.

I argue no, they are not.

Law does not "protect", it is a description of justice, and a prescription for re-establishing justice in a situation where justice has been violated. The debate over "when life begins" (in particular, human life), is a red herring. What is really being debated here, is when it is just to take a human life.

The birth of America require a rather painful death. Some were not ready to kill what was. How do we decide which was right?

In 1990, Robert Bork published a book called "The Tempting of America". It was his attempt to outline the jurisprudential philosophy known as "the originalist position". In to highly salient passages, he outlines the false-principle on which Roe was based, which was demolished in this week's court decision. I read the passages verbatim here, and offer a very thin closing commentary at the end of my own.

The sad, sad state of political philosophy is tragic and horrifying. Paper: https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/172 Philosophy Roulette: https://odysee.com/@nogre0:f/philosophy-roulette-277-a-quandry-of:c

Carl and Benjamin opine at length about the travails of their beloved liberalism. I pile on with my own critique of an early exchange in the discussion.

Dawkins was on Panpsycast recently, and was tossed a whole series of softball queries. The entire episode was more like a team-driven AMA than an interview. In any case, I go through part one of this, and break down some of the philosophical assumptions being bandied about in the interview.

An announcer exclaims in German: "Alles Klar! Alles Klar! Russki Schwein! Russki Schwein!" And then starts jabbering in some slavic language. It sounds like it might be Ukrainian? There's also a woman, and a few other speakers.

Mostly because I'm an idiot

Kuhn makes a metaphorical parallel between scientific and political revolution. I think there are some disturbing implications to this.

What happens when an atheist academic tries to equate critical race theory with the religion he hates?

The conflict between man and nature, between man and technology, and between man and himself, all encapsulated in this modern science fiction allegory.

There is a fascinating parallel between Rousseau and Havel, that runs as a through-line through Marx. The entire French tradition in the Enlightenment is responsible for this egalitarian strain of thought.

I'm reading Lindsay's book "Everybody Is Wrong About God", and it's hilariously bad.

When philosophy and music combine to produce a masterpiece of truth

Heidegger laments the fact that technological society is transforming all entities into means, and divesting reality of its moral value. He argues for a new form of thought, to realign our relationship to reality. Simone Weil offers an answer to this question that our religious tradition has already thought of, but we abandoned.

Havel treats us to his ecstatic vision of man after the Existential Revolution

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay provide some useful insights into Chapter 5 of Havel's little book. Turns out he's making the same postmodern critique of his Communist society, as Foucault was making of western liberalism.