Politics According To Krauthammer
I just finished Charles Krauthammer's last book, "Things That Matter." It is so brillian that I literally found over 100 topics to discuss in this forum. But I won't. At the very start of the book he makes the point that no matter how much effort he puts into writing about science,medicine, art, poetry,architecture, chess, space, sports, numbers, in the end they must "bow to the sovereignty of politics."In trying to move the spectre of politics off the table he got into the Voyager probes and whose voice narrated but Kurt Waldheim, a former NAZI. It prompted me to ask the Gulch one simple but extremely profound question: What one thing would you send on Voyager 1 and/or 2? Krauthammer finally winds up saying what biologist and philosopher Lewis Thomas proposed as evidence of human achievement ;the Complete works of Bach.(Personally, I would have chosen Beethoven). So, am asking this forum, if you were allowed to send only one item on Voyager 1 or 2, what would it be? Remember you are representing all of earth from fauna to flora, from philosophy to nonsense, from math to quantum. Just one thing. Music? Science? words? go for it.
Previous comments...
I always hoped to visit there. Should I initiate a go fund me page. Actually I rather go to Puma Punko in Central America, they have dozens of beautifully rendered giant stone letter "H" beautifully rendered, which are totally impossible.
A Creator is the one responsible for the Earth and the universe, not some happenstance crazy boom. The Bible takes you through the various stages of God's chosen people and their peaks and valleys. Man was trapped by sin from the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and were doomed to die as a result. God told of His plan for a Savior throughout the Old Testament and as a result Jesus comes on the scene promising people an eternal life if they believed on Him as their Savior and through Him they would be able to attain eternal life in Heaven. He did miracles while he was here on earth. A perfect example of Him feeding 5,000 men pus women and children with 3 fish and 7 loaves of bread. That story was told there is record of anyone disputing it so by that record alone you have to conclude that Jesus was who He said He was, God's son. Many other miracles occur in the New Testament if you will read it. None have been rejected by the people that knew if they were true or not, the people of His time. There will be an end to this earth one day and no one knows when that will come. Remember, it takes more faith to believe in nothing than something and God sent Jesus, a living, breathing man here on earth to live among us to show us the way to eternal salvation. don't forget that the 11 disciples that followed Him were all put to death in a very gruesome way except for John, They could have all rejected Christ if they renounced Him but none did. If that doesn't convince you then I pray that you will at least ponder on what I have written.
It's really simple to be saved. If you are saved or become saved it will change your life forever, today while you are here on earth and later in your heavenly home.
Not that I agree with what bassboat said...
AND I do not intend to start a flame war here,
BUT saying that the Bible is all bad seems an ignorant position to take and you are much wiser than that! Having a knee-jerk reaction to anyone using the Bible as a way to explain a philosophical or historical viewpoint is also ignorant.
The "book" in and of itself is not bad at all. It is a historical artifact. Many of its stories have been corroborated by Modern science. And believe it or not, there is actually quite a bit in there that is in alignment with Objectivist thinking. Really there is! (Obviously not all of it). And when read as an allegory, it is filled with poetic, insightful and enlightening messages.
Remember that the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were ALSO teaching tool allergories. Each has their place.
The demise of the Bible as a teaching tool is more linked to the fact that imperfect human 'interpreters twist the original Aramaic and Greek words; They manipulate the plot-lines to serve their own purposes; And despots and religious zealots use this book to subvert peoples thinking to enslave them. But again - that should have no bearing on objectively researching the original Biblical words and concepts themselves.
I am especially amused at those who insist the BIBLE is the only true and 'holy word of G_D.'
IF G_D exists - then everything is his holy word right!?! The Bible is written by some interesting storytellers, some wise and other maybe not as much... IN THE LONG RUN, it is also a book that was compiled by fallible humans.
Just my 2 cents. Back to Krauthammer, G*D's messenger for reason in the Modern World ;-p
It is not an allegory, it has many of those things but it is not filled with them. It is a set of stories, compiled at various times best seen as myths with merits as literature and as a guide to the history and anthropology of those times.
As an atheist outside academia I am a comparatively frequent reader of the Bible. I read to pick out the stupidities and the gory bits to quote at enemies (wink), but mostly as the language has such beauty and dignity. This attraction is a characteristic of the King James largely absent in other translations. While the translation team (yes it was a team) was excellent, the language would have been close to that spoken at the time.
I recall when I listened to an audiobook of The Scarlett Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I just had to read some of the passages as well as listen.
As to the Bible as history, it is part of history, but as a reliable source - mixed, sometimes agreeing with other sources, or not. As history, maybe better than 50%; but as science, worse.
Herb7734, to divert further from your post if I may, there are many naturalistic explanations for the origins. I like the the Magic Mushroom of John Allegro, The Book of J by Harold Bloom is more conventional.
It isn't a source of history at all (not "maybe better than 50%") since you never know what might have been true, even when confined to earthly accounts that may be, without checking more objective evidence. As science, it simply isn't, not just worse than 50%. Sacred text and appeals to the supernatural are the opposite of science.
But it doesn't make the Bible "history" and the essence of stripping myth from the historical relations is not linguistic "interpretation" of words from ancient languages. However interesting it can be to understand more of ancient human history, the major historical significance of the Bible is its long history of enormous destructive influence on western civilization. There is not "actually quite a bit in there that is in alignment with Objectivist thinking", which claim is simply bizarre. Nor is it "filled with poetic, insightful and enlightening messages".
Rejecting the Bible as a non-objective source of history, let alone its role as "sacred text" and "a way to explain a philosophical or historical viewpoint" is not an "ignorant" "knee-jerk reaction", which accusation in megamail's post is a gratuitous, manipulative insult.
No one is "making Ayn Rand's books the exclusive ideas and cutting off anything new in any realm". No one does that and there is no good purpose to posting such a slur on this forum, posing as mature advice that "must be remembered". Adding that "there are no ultimate answers" also adds nothing of value; the vague use of undefined "ultimate answers" typically implies an irrelevant mystical notion of the nature of knowledge superseding what is known objectively and with certainty, whether from Ayn Rand or any other legitimate source.
I believe I said it was a historical artifact - not history.
Also The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are serious, integrated philosophical novels, not "teaching tool allegories" "ALSO" like the Bible. Most works of fiction are not allegories (and neither was the Bible).
I'll respect the benefit of the "doubt" policy (if not grant principled respect to the doubter). I {tew} have no time to waste on mysticism, but no topic is outside the scope of the true revolutionary's purview and if taking Galt's (entire) Oath is not the threshold for admittance (as witness all the "push-back") then I don't know what in principle can be, and I'll grant any honest "truth-seeker" an audience.
You'll notice I recommended the Valliant book "How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" to him (assuming he ever shows his face here again after your harsh, druidic denunciation.) I adhere to the principle of rational engagement, but only on the assumption that I'm dealing with psychologically, if not intellectually honest minds.
And I only denounce it when instead of moderating, or changing course, it doubles down. Catch my drift?
For Galt's Sake, I will follow Ayn Rand's example as related in Facets of Ayn Rand by her close friend Mary-Ann Sures and Chales: [which I'm having a hard time finding in the clutter, unfortunately, but you might be familiar with the genuinely cordial relationship she had with her devoutly religious maid}.
There was none of this modern (or post-modern friction), this "fortress-mentality" in her inner-sanctum, her home. And it isn't necessary, there is no necessary conflict or obstacle to an honestly passionate valuer uncompromising in his insistence on reason and for liberty.
I'll look for the book. Keep swinging my legalistic rival for glory!! B^)
It doesn't matter, but I do think The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Pentateuch, lliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Orlando Furioso, Gibran's The Prophet, or (my definite preference) Atlas Shrugged all speak profoundly to the human condition.
Most comprehensively, Sir Simon Fraser's "The Golden Bough" would give the "alien archeologists" probably the best overall view of the human condition before (or beyond) Aristotle and, what I call, History's "Golden Braid": Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Ayn Rand and...?
[PS - Please ignore the haters uninterested in advancing anything. They speak for nothing and no-one but to their obviously questionable motives in "pushing back."]
According to James Valliant, in the book I mentioned elsewhere, "A major theme of Jean-Christophe is Rolland's belief in the semi-tragic and 'selfless' perseverance required of an artist, what Rand would call a 'malevolent universe' premise." (Not "Golden Braid" material).
Makes me think of Malcolm Arnold Symphonies or Depeche Mode (both of which I love despite their romantic darkness). But these days I'm more drawn to Nino Rota and Duran Duran.
After immersing myself in WWII and the Holocaust (reading such books as If this Be Man, The Painted Bird, and Ordinary Men at SDSU (while simultaneously immersed in my post-modern Linguistics major: mind-scrambling Semantics), I completely turned away from Objectivism (and all philosophy) and dived into the stories and novels of Hermann Hesse (which I read in order), then I read Never Let Me Go and was "inexplicably" depressed for over five years (too depressed to function, actually).
I began to slowly emerge from that unending malaise when The DIM Hypothesis and How We Know were published, but it took me until I devised my own "gestalt" to recover my senses completely (I write about it in my recent "Golden Braid..." post).
I might not rush out right away to re-immerse myself in a "world" that created so much ambiguity in my mind at its most psychologically vulnerable. But I am master of my mind once more and might even read the other book associated with Branden's malaise: Darkness at Noon (which I'd always meant to read).
http://a.co/d/80XqDPn
My personal passion before or even "beyond" Objectivism has always been music: the ultimate mnemonic (especially classical, or what I call philosophically-original, music).
Music is the most metaphysical of the arts because it gives form to the axioms themselves, directly without intermediary entities required.
When listening to music I think about how it expresses a grasp (or rejection) of existence, consciousness and/or identity.
https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Chris...