A sample:
Every age and locality faces its own set of unique difficulties. Some of these sets are more difficult than others. Some have easily-implemented solutions, while others do not; some are resolved by the strength of empires while others are caused by such strength. Every once in a while, these problems become so entangled that they ultimately create a crisis: a situation so perilous that the whole of some multi-part entity, be it a community, nation, society, or civilization, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by those wrapt up within it, is on the verge of total collapse. Indeed, oftentimes in the life of an individual, he will encounter a precarious moment of crisis and not realize it himself as such; he may even be elated by the situation. But so may a drunkard teetering towards the edge of a fatally-high promontory.
The state of the Western world today is very comparable to that of a drunkard. Reason has been drowned beneath an intoxicating flow of pleasures, and despite having long ago passed the early signs of sickness, the flood of hedonism has not yet abated. The individual’s care for anything beyond himself has diminished continually, with the maxims of friendships, cliques, and supposedly noble causes taking on little more than the significance of the reflection of one’s subjectivized beliefs in the righteousness of something. The status quo of the Western moral paradigm has become a morbid and calcified perversion of the Kantian categorical imperative: rather than act only in such a way that you will your action to be a universal law by which all others abide, it has been adopted that the most morally righteous way to treat others is precisely as they desire. Even the notion that harming others, be it against their will or not, has been dissipating in many parts of the world. Hopefully this is an indication that the sickness of the West is at the least near the climactic point at which it will go through a painful and perhaps vile purgation; but it is significantly better for the filth to be unveiled for what it is and expunged from the body, lest it corrode from within.
21 comments:
"Reason has been drowned beneath an intoxicating flow of pleasures"
I just have one question, and I am being sincere here, what is wrong with an intoxicating flow of pleasure? I mean, it seems to me that the whole purpose of the religious right is to suck the pleasure out of the rest of society. No one asks you to engage in activities that the rest of us find pleasurable, but why must you insist what we are doing is wrong?
Jake, I think you know or at least suspect what is being referred to here. Most pleasures are just fine in moderation and in their proper place, but too much of anything, even if it's good, is harmful and destructive. The operative word here is "intoxicating" -- meaning, excessive to the point where it becomes toxic or poisonous.
Enjoying good food is fine; gorging yourself until you weigh 400 pounds and have a heart attack isn't. Enjoying good wine, beer, or liquor is fine, but getting drunk every day to the point that you neglect your job, your family and your health isn't.
Smoking would be fine IF it could be done in moderation; the problem is that nicotine is so addictive that it's practically impossible to do so, and tobacco smoke is extremely toxic. Hence we have laws and rules to restrict when and where people can smoke.
As for sex, which I suspect is the pleasure you are really referring to, there may be a difference of belief here in regard to what constitutes moderation and excess. The reason Christian belief restricts sex to marriage between a man and a woman is because there are harmful consequences both to individuals and to society when it occurs anywhere else.
Children need mothers and fathers who are committed to one another and to the child. Women (married or not) need men to respect them as persons and not treat them as objects. Men need women to respect them and trust them.
The notion that everyone has an inalienable right to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, erodes these principles. Again, it's not because we're trying to "suck the pleasure out of the rest of society" but because we don't want society to collapse from neglect and selfishness.
There are still plenty of pleasures in life that are not harmful and not inclined to excess, such as music, art, literature, nature, travel, exercise, sports, etc. Notice that most of these require a certain amount of discipline and reason in order to enjoy. These do not "drown" reason but instead enhance it.
Jake: I just have one question, and I am being sincere here, what is wrong with an intoxicating flow of pleasure?
Ori: Ask the family of a heroin addict. The problem is not the pleasure, it is the intoxication.
Bookworm, there are many pleasures that humans crave and, dare I say, require. Sex is one of many. The thing to remember here, we are all, at base, animalistic. Not everyone shares your definitions of societal bliss. Certainly I don't want to prevent you from enjoying what you deem a healthy lifestyle. I certainly would never try to legislate against your wishes. But the thing is, if someone wishes to drink themselves to oblivion, smoke till they get lung cancer, or shoot heroin until they die, well then so be it. Not the life I would choose, but hey, maybe they know something I don't. As for sex, which I find amusing you latch onto as my pleasure, you are correct. Humans are free to choose your lifestyle, or mine. For women, mankind has created drugs to prevent pregnancy, surgery to eliminate pregnancy, or free will to embrace pregnancy. For men, mankind has created condoms to prevent pregnancy, surgery to prevent pregnancy, or free will to embrace pregnancy. There are many paths to choose. I would appreciate not limiting everyone to yours.
Jake, all law legislates someone's morality.
Unless you're advocating anarchy, your insistence that you wouldn't limit anyone else's pleasure is nonsense.
As for those pleasures which carry with them health consequences (several of which you mentioned), look for them to be increasingly regulated as government is increasingly involved in providing healthcare.
And you didn't address a single point that Bookworm made.
Come on Paul, you and I both know that nothing I mentioned will be affected by regulations. Let's take for example heroine use, which of the things I mentioned is the only thing currently illegal. You can't regulate a drug any further than making it illegal, yet, many individuals choose to shoot heroine. Think back to prohibition, yes, technically lawmakers made booze illegal, yet we all can read about what happened. Illegal speakeasies, moonshine, etc. My insistence is not nonsense. If people want to get high, engage in sexual relations with others, etc., then they will. And I did address Bookworm's major point...I explained attempting to regulate someone's pleasures is purely illogical. The point here is an individual pleasure. Society has a right to legislate against acts that threaten the society as a whole. Victimless crimes harm no one except the individual who chooses to engage. It is laughable that society attempts to legislate against human pleasures. Drug use, prostitution, booze, cigarettes, yes, all of these things are either regulated or illegal, yet you and I both know that it isn't hard to go out and get high, drunk, and laid. Sure, society will bust those stupid enough to get caught, but trust me, society is losing the war against drugs and sex, and the fact that the Christian right is willing to fight this war is laughable.
So, Jake, what if a person's pleasure is murder? We can't regulate it any more than to make it illegal, but there are still murders (also bank robberies, convenience store holdups, political corruption, etc.)
You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have laws that people might break.
Society has a right to legislate against acts that threaten the society as a whole.
Quite right! Now does anyone want to argue that high divorce rates, nearly 2 million abortions per year, growing numbers of single-family households, and growing illegitimacy rates don't "threaten society as a whole"?
But the notion that Christianity is waging a war against sex betrays either a willful ignorance or a purposed misrepresentation of what Christian morality teaches.
Maybe you should re-read my post. I stated "Victimless crimes harm no one except the individual who chooses to engage. It is laughable that society attempts to legislate against human pleasures." Obviously murder is not a victimless crime, nor is armed robbery, assault, drunk driving, etc. Yes, acts that threaten a society should be regulated against. So let me ask you this, do you think divorce should be legislated against? You cite above single family households harming society. So divorce should be illegal? Should women who get pregnant outside of marriage be prosecuted? Also, yes I think Christianity is waging a war against any sex that does not occur within a marriage. Is that not true. Do you not preach against prostitution, sex between gays (because you certainly don't want them to get married, do you), sex amongst consenting adults who meet in a bar one night? What am I missing here. How am I misrepresenting the Christian war on sex?
What am I missing here. How am I misrepresenting the Christian war on sex?
To say that Christianity is at war against sex is like saying that a fitness coach is at war against food.
Lust and gluttony are both deadly sins, because both of them pervert pleasant necessities into ends unto themselves.
Sex has a properly role in a person's life, just as food has. Either can be abused.
So denying homosexuals the right to marry is not a war against homosexuality? Really? You are fighting to legislate against gay marriage and you don't think that is attacking homosexuals. This is the most glaring example of the Christian war against sex. Followed closely by the abortion debate, the birth control debate, the prostitution debate, etc. When you take positions against people based on your idea of Christian morality, which by the way is not shared by many members of society, then you must expect those who disagree with you to take the position that the Christian right is waging a war.
And the funny thing is, those of us on this side of the battle certainly does not wish to legislate against you marrying a woman, waiting until marriage to consummate the marriage, raising your children in a traditional family, etc. etc. Yet your side gets all up in arms if I meet a woman in bar and have some fun. Seems like a war to me.
We don't deny homosexuals the right to marry. We deny them the power to redefine marriage.
And if you think that what is happening is a war being waged by Christians, I would suggest that you have no experience with real war.
Not in my state you don't. That is the beauty of living in MA. Heck, almost all of New England recognizes marriage between gays and lesbians. I mean, even Iowa has seen the light, so to speak. And guess what, it hasn't affected my life one bit. Our society hasn't imploded on itself. As far as your war comment, ask Dr. Tiller if it feels like a war....oh wait, you can't.
Thanks for the admission, Jake, that what you've done is redefine marriage into something else that it never was before.
No problem, success is often measured by changing ridiculous definitions. I love how all of the forms at first had to be crossed out because they said Groom and Bride (Man and Woman). It took a while to modify the forms, but really, it wasn't that hard. And what do you know, heterosexual marriage (there is new term for you!!!) didn't cease to exist. In fact, many heterosexual individuals I know got married. I even have been to heterosexual weddings myself!!! The crazy thing is, those weddings that I went to, the marriages have in fact, lasted so far. Crazy Huh?
Jake: And what do you know, heterosexual marriage (there is new term for you!!!) didn't cease to exist.
Ori: Was freedom of religion hurt in any way? For example, if I practice a religion that does not recognize homosexual marriage, am I obligated to recognize it as valid?
Counterfeiting happens, but real money is still valuable. I guess by your logic that means that counterfeiting is OK.
Paul, that is about the dumbest analogy I have ever seen regarding gay marriage. Let's see here, counterfeit money de-values the dollar, drives up inflation, and threatens the country's economic stability. That hardly equates to real money being valuable. If counterfeiting wasn't curbed, we would be in big trouble. Gay marriage has no affect on heterosexual marriage and does not harm anyone or anything. Trust me, gay marriage has been legal in MA for some time now and my heterosexual marriage has not been affected. None of my friends marriages have been affected by gay marriage. I still have all of the rights afforded a married couple as I did before. My wife can still act as a health proxy, we can file joint tax returns, my employer covers her and my family for health benefits just like before. It really is apples and oranges and you know it. And please spare me how gay marriage ruins society. Again, we live it here in MA and it hasn't impacted anyones life. To fight against it is bigoted. Yes I know, I am spouting the same old liberal argument, but it is true.
Ori - I never argued that the Catholic church must recognize gay marriage. If the Catholic church wishes to ban gays from getting married then so be it. I am married and not by the Catholic church, does that make my marriage invalid. Of course not. Maybe you don't, as a Catholic, recognize my marriage. Guess what, I don't care. If I wanted Catholic recognition I would become a Catholic and embrace all of the views you hold. Marriage is not a religious institution. So your argument is flawed at best. Your freedom of religion would be assaulted if we argued that Catholics must allow gays to marry in the Catholic church. You are right to fight that fight, but not against those you wish to marry outside the Church, cause otherwise you would be battling against a lot more people other than homosexuals. I don't ask for the rights that Catholic Marriage grants (whatever those may be). I want to be recognized by the state for all of those rights and benefits.
Here's hoping I don't regret this...
Jake wrote, in reply to Paul:
[Paul]
Counterfeiting happens, but real money is still valuable. I guess by your logic that means that counterfeiting is OK.
[Jake]
Paul, that is about the dumbest analogy I have ever seen regarding gay marriage.
Insult first, scoff second, offer illogical arguments third. I see.
Jake, are you even conscious of how insulting and irritable you are? Instead of treating your debate opponents with respect, you become obnoxious and childish, and play the role of "stereotypical angry liberal" quite well... and in doing so, you diminish any hope of anyone taking you seriously. When you start by insulting and denigrating people, that's a bad thing... and you really shouldn't be surprised if people ignore you, respond in kind, or some other negative consequence. Get a grip, will you?
Let's see here, counterfeit money de-values the dollar, drives up inflation, and threatens the country's economic stability. That hardly equates to real money being valuable.
You're talking about counterfeiting on a vast scale; what if only a tiny amount of counterfeiting were going on? Its effect on the economy would be negligible, wouldn't it? Would *that* [limited amount] pass your moral standards of "being OK"? I'm genuinely curious, here.
Gay marriage has no affect on heterosexual marriage and does not harm anyone or anything.
Fine: you've now stated your personal opinion... though you've mistakenly structured it to sound like an absolute (objective) truth. A proof or convincing argument should follow, here.
Trust me, gay marriage has been legal in MA for some time now and my heterosexual marriage has not been affected.
First, you're being stunningly short-sighted if you think that your personal marriage is the measure of "damage to the institution of marriage as a whole". Legal marriage might be *abolished* tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect my behaviour toward my wife, nor hers to me; would that by your proof that the abolition of marriage "does not harm anyone or anything"?
Second: don't you think it's possible for dire effects to need *time* to manifest? Your argument sounds a bit like saying, "I've smoked cigarettes for a whole year, and I haven't died yet, or developed cancer or any other significant illness!"
None of my friends marriages have been affected by gay marriage.
See above.
I still have all of the rights afforded a married couple as I did before.
But do you not understand that there's more than your own "personal story" at stake? If the age of sexual consent in the USA were lowered to 5 years, I doubt it would affect your relations with your wife... but would you find it "harmless" because of that? What damage would it do to your marriage, I ask? Again, there's more at stake than your own story, or mine, or any individual's. Morality is concerned with much more than any given person's perceived happiness, pleasure, or feelings of security.
To fight against it is bigoted. Yes I know, I am spouting the same old liberal argument, but it is true.
You can spout any argument you wish; but DEFEND IT. Don't simply scream it (replete with insults). If it's true, tell us WHY it's true; explain yourself. Be civil. Type up your reply, then look over it and delete all the insults and rudeness. Try it; you might like the results... and it can do wonders for your ability to argue a point without all the ad hominem nonsense, brashness, and foul temper getting in the way.
Paladin,
Here is my position. Gay marriage doesn't affect my individual marriage, nor does it harm or affect society as a whole. Here is why, gay men and women exist in society, have existed in society for as long as I have been alive, and will continue to exist in society when I am dead and gone. Giving them legal rights associated with marriage will not change things. It won't increase the number of gay men and women. It won't turn straight men gay. It won't cause straight men to avoid marrying women. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. There are certain legal rights that an individual can only be granted by entering into marriage. Gay men and women who live in states that deny gay marriage will continue to live together, have sex, have children, and love one another. The only difference is they will not be treated equally with straight individuals. I would ask you if you think homosexual relations should be made illegal? Would you advocate arresting individuals for being in a homosexual relationship? For engaging in sodomy? If the answer is no, then how does granting them rights associated with marriage harm society? No one is asking the Catholic Church to marry gay couples. Obviously there is a legal marriage done by the state, and there are legal marriages that are done in religious ceremonies that are then recognized by the state. That is my position. So again I ask, do you want to see homosexual relations outlawed by the state. Do you want to prosecute homosexuals? If the answer is no, then tell me, what rational do you have for denying them rights that can only be granted by legal recognition from the state associated with marriage.
Post a Comment