"Just shut it down."
The movie opened this weekend. It appears that Glenn Close is heavily invested in the movie, financially and emotionally.
official and Apple
Enjoying their tolerance
37 minutes ago
Such distinctions are major philosophical topics, of course, and most non-philosophers won’t be in a position to enter into high-level philosophical discussions. But there are both non-philosophers who are quite capable of following such discussions and philosophers who enter public debates about relevant topics.Might it be the case that most academic philosophers aren't able to enter into such high-level philosophical discussions, either?
The perennial objection to any appeal to philosophy is that philosophers themselves disagree among themselves about everything, so that there is no body of philosophical knowledge on which non-philosophers can rely. It’s true that philosophers do not agree on answers to the “big questions” like God’s existence, free will, the nature of moral obligation and so on. But they do agree about many logical interconnections and conceptual distinctions that are essential for thinking clearly about the big questions. Some examples: thinking about God and evil requires the key distinction between evil that is gratuitous (not necessary for some greater good) and evil that is not gratuitous; thinking about free will requires the distinction between a choice’s being caused and its being compelled; and thinking about morality requires the distinction between an action that is intrinsically wrong (regardless of its consequences) and one that is wrong simply because of its consequences. Such distinctions arise from philosophical thinking, and philosophers know a great deal about how to understand and employ them. In this important sense, there is body of philosophical knowledge on which non-philosophers can and should rely.Why should we trust an academic's opinon about morals if he has no substantial ties to the community and is more of a parasite than the guru he aspires to be? What we need aren't professional thinkers, but emplaced teachers of classical or traditional scientiae and sapientia so that we, too, may learn to reason to the truths which we no longer acknowledge as a community. But this is possible probably only for a few, and so what is more important is the renewal of evangelization, first through effective witness. As the professor points out, knowing how to reason well can help us in apologetics. But if philosophy just provides us tools for thinking but no direction, then what will happen to society as people continue to bicker about the big issues? Who will save people from themselves? Because of the consequences of original sin, the division into competing schools or individuals will never be resolved, but God is merciful and has revealed Himself to us.
Happy 256th birthday, Mr Mozart!
To celebrate, listen to the first-ever recording of Concerto No.25 on Mozart's own piano over on the AAMplayer, with AAM and Robert Levin. The instrument has lasted just as well as the music - and will still be going strong on his 356th birthday, we reckon...
I’m going to try to make it simple. What does it mean to be a feminist? Can you be both pro-life and a feminist? First, looking up “feminism” in the dictionary, leads me to this definition:
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men
Hmm…ok, pretty simple to understand. There’s no formula or step-by-step beliefs you must ascribe to in order to fit into this category. Basically, a feminist believes that women deserve equal rights—in all areas of life—to men. A feminist is pro-woman. This simple definition leads me to five conclusions.
1) Anyone, including a man, can be a feminist. Ok, this really is a serious article, but silly thoughts first. I find it very odd when women fighting for their equal rights shun men who also want to fight for women’s equal rights. We should welcome them! Men can be pro-women. Men can believe in equal rights for women. I know. I happen to have exactly two brothers, one father, and one husband like this. And they’re not rare in my circle of friends. Feminists should not be anti-men.
2) Though “rights” should be equal, talents or roles cannot always be. There is a big, big, BIG difference in saying that women should have the right to play sports and saying that women can play tackle football just as well as men. Personally, while women may arguably have the right to play any sport they want, I will not be allowing my daughter to get tackled and splatted to kingdom come by 250 pound men. Just a thought. Now if there was only an all-women’s football team…
Seriously, though, watch small children, and you will see that there is an inherent difference in little boys and little girls. We are created differently and we suit different roles better. It’s not a violation of “equal rights” to say that women and men are different.
The political correctness ideology of which I speak, as I suggest, is not seen to be debatable whatsoever by its staunchest and most outspoken proponents, and not only this: it is assumed a priori to be in line with Christian orthodoxy; in fact, any view that contradicts its principles or application to political or economic reality is determined to be, a priori, heresy or proof of unbelief, and even immorality. For example, if one articulates a skeptical position with regard to the justice of the war in Iraq, one may be accused of approving of genocide and of hating one’s country. If one expresses skepticism about general truthfulness of government pronouncements and intentions with regard to war, one may be accused of a kind of modernist skepticism about truth in general.