More comments for JHP

JHP:

I am sorry you consider these exchanges as “tedious”, as they represent an element of democracy of which I am fond. Moreover, given how prolific you are in your responses, I doubt the sincerity of such claims. That said, I will try to respond to some of your most recent points.

When speaking of the Catholic Church you claim that I ought to “make the distinction between it as an institution, and it as its members”. However, this runs contrary to your previous comment: “The whole tradition of the Church has been the reconciliation and mutual development of faith and reason. The Catholic dedication to reason is the cause of its doctrinal development.” Thus, you cannot choose to consider the church as an institution when it suits you, and then turn toward the broader congregation when it does not. I responded to your first posting about it as an institution, now, however, you ask me to consider its members.

Along similar lines, your response to my question about the Crusades is “that the political landscape at the time was very little like ours today. The separation of Church and State was not so clear. Therefore, many secular duties and responsibilities (e.g., war, the Inquisition, which, if you look at it broadly, is not much different from what our wonderful democratic government is doing today) fell into the hands of the clerics.” How can this be squared with your above comment, “The whole tradition of the Church has been the reconciliation and mutual development of faith and reason”? Here again you want it both ways: You steadfastly refuse to critique the history of the Catholic Church because times have changed, yet draw support for your positions from literature centuries, if not millennia, old, as if the ideas were unproblematically transcendent. In noting this inconsistency I am gesturing toward Michel Foucault’s idea of the episteme, but also I want to know how some elements are perceived to be temporally bound, while others do not suffer the same fate? Moreover, what decides which bits of historical knowledge are able to transcend the ages? Stating that the reason particular items are transcendent is because they are inherently transcendent begs the question.

You are welcome to correct me on the Church’s relationship to Germany and Italy during the Second World War, but Papal apologies may make this more difficult. Moreover, while this institution’s silence may not be an admission of guilt, it does not speak in the Church’s favor. My point in bringing this up is to note that any human undertaking, regardless of its theological underpinnings, is apt to demonstrate mistakes—why not claim them and move on? My point in the original posting was never the shortcomings of the Church. Had you looked over my other entries you might note a particular curiosity on my part.

Taking your comments about the Church’s treatment Galileo as another example, how is this a shining example of what you call “the reconciliation and mutual development of faith and reason?”

Problematically, you claim that “after something is concluded, there is no room for dissent.” If matters were indeed “concluded” (to play upon the finality of the word) you may have a point, as well as a platitude. But this does not seem to be what is meant by your posting. Rather, you seem to mean that the passage of law settles matters. Why then, I ask, does abortion crop up again and again? Was this not “concluded” legally speaking some decades ago? If not then you seem to agree with my point.

Yet, what is most crucial in this exchange is indicated by your later comment, “You've successfully deflected the point. Now I no longer know what the disagreement is besides a very long list of particulars. Disagreements about particulars are rarely fruitful.” If you look back to my original post then you will note that the particulars are what you have repeatedly chosen to take up, while the central thesis is what receives only partial consideration. I had no intention of deflecting anything. Rather I have and will continue to push you on my original concern about democracy and intractable ideologies.

Toward this end you claim that you “suspect that it is impossible for large groups of people who believe fundamentally different things about the reality of the world to coexist because that seems to be the trend in history. America has succeeded laudably. I doubt, however, that America will continue on forever. I'll be sad to see it go, but I don't know of any institution save one that looks to be indestructible.” While I can ignore the problematic appeal to history, I would hope that you would endeavor to do more than laud democracy. In fact, unless you are simply querulous, your posts here might indicate a particular commitment to democratic debate. However, I think still more is required of us. In particular I feel we must defend and champion the rights of others to hold divergent opinions, while simultaneously not allowing them or our own to be taken up as unchanging law. Is this not the tension in defending the freedom of speech for hate groups: we defend the utterances of a particularly heinous group in order to secure the privilege which allows our own tolerance and expressive capacity to flourish?

If your primary commitment is to the Church and those who support your view, then you are asking others to take up the difficult work of democracy so that you can practice your beliefs and ignore the possibility that your group was once, and may be again, intellectually marginalized and seen as unworthy of support. This is not something I care to see happen, as I feel you have something to contribute. But if your response is idle cynicism and faith in faith, not the labor of democracy, then I call that self-serving and selfish. For me, your opinion needs to coexist alongside mine, and we must perform the work of democratic living sincerely and endeavor to find ways to honor both in spite of and with a reliance on contradictions.

Furthermore, why can’t you peaceably coexist alongside those who terminate their pregnancies, club feet or otherwise? I assume you coexist alongside supporters of the death penalty, or am I wrong? As you know, the Catholic Church has a consistent policy regarding the sanctity of life. More to the point, I would like to know why Western European Catholics are able to peaceably coexist when members of their societies can obtain abortions; why is America somehow different in this respect?

And no, I don’t think that “Ideally everyone would agree.” In fact, to believe so would mean that, at least in terms of my opinions, I assume that they are superior to others. I would not have dedicated myself to higher education had I believed that. Nor, for that matter, would I stay up late composing long responses to you; I could have just as easily deleted your comments and sat smugly in the knowledge that you were misguided.

As for debating a reading list, I simply mean we can throw our respective literatures and favorite theorists at one another in hopes of what—impressing other readers? I have had to take up Aristotle and I must say that he did little for me. But then again, I am not a confessed classicist. Furthermore, “the pleasure of discovering truth” does not describe what I do. Rather, I enjoy finding and reading literature that provides compelling questions, explanations, and metaphors, not truth, which is not a concept in which I am sure I believe. This may be because I agree with Richard Rorty’s notion of truth as he explains it in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.

Lastly, I think that assuming minds will be changed is not the point here. Rather, I think we might clarify our own positions, and if lucky, gain insight into alternative perspectives that may one day help us to expand our own thinking.