What does it mean to be different, really? Is there such a thing? The more I think about it, the more I think there isn't. You can be different from something, but ultimately, that puts you into relation to something else. If everything is different, doesn't that mean that they are the same in their own respective different-ness? The reason I am thinking about these things is because we are discussing John Hick's theory of religious pluralism in one of my classes, and the problems inherent in his own system. On one hand, he wants to say that all religions are the same, and the only way he can do that is to say that nothing at all can be known about "the real." But on the other hand, he definitely does not want to include things like the 9/11 terrorists, or Jim Jones style cultists in his list of religions that are the same. In order to do that, he has to say something about the real, which causes more problems. He tries to restrict what you can say to negative statements and formal assertions (something that is true by definition alone, e.g. a = a). But when he does this, he allows something to be said, which opens the floodgates, leaving the pluralist with no ground to stand on whatsoever. It's all too interesting...
In a similar vein, in discussion last night, I came to the conclusion that one of the definite issues with the modern philosopher, by and large, is that he is searching for the ultimate reality, or ultimate wisdom, as it were. This in itself seems not to be a problem, indeed, in a non-theological world, there is no problem with it. But, if we take the presuppositions of Christianity to be correct, we are left with a purposelessness at the end of any philosophical discussion that delves into meaning or in any way attempts to describe, discover, or define the ultimate reality. See, philosophy is primarily about the self. As a philosopher, one is attempting to discover what this reality is so that one can [such and such]. In other words, it has become not the quest for God, but the quest to become God. I don't think that is what Socrates was after, but somewhere along the way, that is what philosophy has become. Truly, though, philosophy that is informed by and driven by the quest to learn as much about true wisdom and God as we can so that we can live perfectly in relation to Him, gives both meaning and purpose to the field.
Both of those paragraphs seem tangential, so, how about another tangent: A ridiculous spectacle.
The issue of taxes is a huge one in this election year. We have (what seems to be) a rejuvenated conservative base, though one that is not "in step" with much of the Republican political rhetoric, which is refreshing. Some might even label this new, anti-incumbent movement libertarian, as it seems to attack both sides wherever big government is concerned. Personally, I'm a big fan of this change, though I'm not one to be a part of any rally or movement or anything like that. But, I am one of those annoying people that both "sides" disdain because I agree with their opponent on some issues. For instance, I want to cut military spending. I think it's out of control. And right there, any of my hard-line neo-conservative republican friends are labelling me as a political heretic. And don't get me wrong, I am not anti-military. Rather, I am anti-empire.
On the flip side, I want to slash taxes and government programs. I don't think it's the government's job or business to take care of me, and I would rather they left me alone to make my way in the world where and when possible. I like laws, provided those laws do not interfere with my ability to make a just life for me and my family. I am not an anarchist. I recognize that government is necessary, if dangerous, and that it is because of man that we will never achieve a truly workable government. But, to get to the point: I hope this anti-party, anti-big government lasts, and I can say from a completely third party position, that I hope both parties reform to a small-government mindset because of it. The last thing we need is any more debt or for this recession to hurt any more people. The government needs to think like a business: When you can't make ends meet, it isn't necessarily because you aren't charging enough, usually it's because you have either too many costs, or your costs themselves are too high (see any government program, particularly any since 1930), and like any business, you need to cut costs before even thinking about "expanding your revenue stream." One, a government doesn't have new markets to branch out into: It has us the people, and that's it. When we're dried up broke, there isn't anything else to tap. Two, every other business in America (well, except GM and a certain number of banks and trusts) are having to cut costs and slim down in order to survive. The government should to.
In any case. I think I've said enough on this issue. In other news:
What has become of the internet?
No comments:
Post a Comment