A Syllogism for Our Time
12/30/2020
1) The people say that the emperor's new clothes are very beautiful.
2) You deny that the emperor's new clothes are very beautiful.
3) Therefore you are not one of the people.
1) The people say that the emperor's new clothes are very beautiful.
2) You deny that the emperor's new clothes are very beautiful.
3) Therefore you are not one of the people.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Okay by me.
Posted by: Janet | 12/31/2020 at 06:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg
Posted by: Don | 12/31/2020 at 09:07 PM
It's only reasonable that non-people should be removed or sequestered somewhere. Certainly not allowed to vote etc.
Posted by: Mac | 12/31/2020 at 10:55 PM
Well, I have obviously missed something.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 01/01/2021 at 04:51 AM
With a few semantic tweaks your syllogism is an almost perfect summary of the argument made by Jewish philosopher Berel Lang in his essay "Genocide and Kant's Enlightenment." He argues in great detail that the modernist idea of a universal humanity, coupled with the belief that justice must therefore apply equally to every single human, leads to the idea that for persons to be intentionally treated "unjustly" they must first be declared in some sense non-human. And it is this which opens the door to the possibility of genocide.
Posted by: Rob G (non-Gotcher variant) | 01/01/2021 at 08:28 AM
I wasn't thinking as grimly as genocide, but the thinking can certainly point that way. So, Janet, while it may be ok by us to be shut out of something we no longer feel a part of, we may not be left alone.
The thought was prompted by the same-sex marriage thing. I see it as a logical absurdity, like saying that a circle can have corners. It's other things too, but to me that's always been the fundamental problem. Yet not only do large numbers of people not see that, but there is a strong impulse to drive out of society those who do see it, at least if they say so.
Posted by: Mac | 01/01/2021 at 10:29 AM
"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.”
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 01/01/2021 at 01:15 PM
Whether or not your society is sliding into soft totalitarianism.
Posted by: Mac | 01/01/2021 at 03:08 PM
By the way in discussing this I'm not especially concerned about my own welfare. I'm fairly old and I don't have to worry about things like losing my job. Unless things get really bad really fast it won't have that much effect on me. It's the state of civilization in general that I'm thinking about. It could be heading into a long dark age, and what the consequences of a very much diminished Christian presence will mean for souls I don't know.
Posted by: Mac | 01/01/2021 at 10:13 PM
Yes, exactly. I'm only a few years from retirement myself and plan to move at some point to a small town in the country and live out my days with books, music, and a garden, with family not too far away. But I truly grieve for what the world is rapidly becoming, and this will affect not only my daughter and any potential grandchildren, but other people's children too.
Posted by: Rob G | 01/02/2021 at 08:28 AM
Me, too. One of the worst things for me is the fact that so many powerful people no longer see the whole American system and culture as something good that always needs to be made better, but as something bad that needs to be replaced. Too few people really grasped the implications of rhetoric like Obama's "fundamentally transform."
Posted by: Mac | 01/02/2021 at 11:14 AM
St. Polycarp was martyred when he was 86!
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/02/2021 at 05:50 PM
So there’s hope for me.
Posted by: Mac | 01/02/2021 at 07:36 PM
Rob G,
You have basically described my life, although one if my kids is way too far away. I just wanted to say that when you get that house in the country, make sure it doesn't have too much grass. ;-)
This is the voice of experience.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 01/02/2021 at 07:58 PM
Sometimes I wish I could get out from under my writing compulsion. I could enjoy books and music more, and my yard would not be the huge mess it is.
Posted by: Mac | 01/02/2021 at 09:48 PM
All of a sudden, I feel so much better about my yard, Maclin. Thank you.
Posted by: Louise | 01/03/2021 at 01:37 AM
Happy to be of service. :-)
Posted by: Mac | 01/03/2021 at 10:04 AM
Actually, please pray for my family. We have had a lot of difficulty in the last three years and things seem to be getting worse, although I seem to see the hand of Providence in our latest situation. All the same, I had hoped to have a restful couple of months and that may not happen now. This is pretty upsetting tbh.
Posted by: Louise | 01/04/2021 at 02:18 AM
I will. I'm very sorry to hear that.
Posted by: Mac | 01/04/2021 at 09:12 AM
Thanks, Maclin.
Posted by: Louise | 01/04/2021 at 07:59 PM
I missed these last comments. Louise, I will pray for you.
So, now it is Wednesday, January 6, and I'm sitting here wondering if it will be conservatives that destroy the Constitution.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 01/06/2021 at 02:52 PM
I wouldn't call these people conservatives.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/06/2021 at 03:30 PM
I started to say so-called conservatives.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 01/06/2021 at 04:02 PM
I didn't know what y'all were talking about till I looked at Facebook. God help us.
Posted by: Mac | 01/06/2021 at 04:35 PM
The anarchist wing of the Trump Party? They don't know what conservative means, or much else.
Posted by: Stu | 01/06/2021 at 05:04 PM
Stu, agreed
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/06/2021 at 06:19 PM
Is this going to be one of those symbolic moments, like the Boston Tea Party? If so, what it will symbolize will be the end of the American idea.
Posted by: Mac | 01/06/2021 at 06:41 PM
Can't help thinking that if Trump had won in a close election the extremists on the other side would be doing something like the same thing. In some ways this is like the lead-up to the Civil War. The extremists on both sides were, as always, the squeakiest wheels and the voices of those calling for moderation were lost in the din. Here's hoping that the coolest heads on both sides will prevail.
The one good thing that might come of this is that those clowns in Washington may finally realize that lots of people are not happy with their governance. For all the negatives of the DT presidency, one positive thing it did was to bring to the surface middle America's disenchantment with current economic, cultural, and foreign policy trends. Trump's "populism" was no doubt widely overrated, but at very least it did hit upon some important truths. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel, etc.,etc.
Posted by: Rob G | 01/07/2021 at 06:00 AM
"Can't help thinking that if Trump had won in a close election the extremists on the other side would be doing something like the same thing. "
That's surely true. The really insidious thing is that they did in fact do something similar, but via the tools of government itself. As Andrew McCarthy and others have said.
And for many months left-wing riots were excused, described as "mostly peaceful" , which they were, but which rather misses the point. Yesterday was mostly peaceful, too, in terms of numbers.
I agree of course about Trump's significance. Unfortunately he has probably damaged more than helped that cause. In the end he's responsible for yesterday.
Posted by: Mac | 01/07/2021 at 07:48 AM
"Trump Did This"
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-did-this/
And he did it in more ways than the immediate ones mentioned there. When he won in 2016 I held out some hope that he would rise to the office. That hope didn't last long.
Posted by: Mac | 01/07/2021 at 08:16 AM
If the VP and half the Cabinet tell Congress the 25th Amendment should be invoked, apparently it would be a done deal. Then for 21 days he would have no power, and he is POTUS for less than that. Heard somebody on NPR this morning answering questions on how this works.
I would certainly approve of such a move. He is mentally ill as far as I'm concerned. Everything that happened with the BLM craziness over the summer....I do not believe any elected officials were egging on rioters.
Posted by: Stu | 01/07/2021 at 11:18 AM
Actually they were, but they were fairly small potatoes, and not the president. And the riots were constantly ignored or excused or downplayed by the Democrats, which now includes most of the press. But that doesn't in any way justify what happened yesterday.
As you may or may not remember, one of the first things I wrote about Trump back in 2016 was "Donald Trump is not right in the head." I can definitely see an argument for invoking the 25th, but I see that this morning Trump is backing off, saying that there will be "an orderly transition of power" on the 20th. So let's hope the frenzy is over.
Posted by: Mac | 01/07/2021 at 11:33 AM
Most of the people I know on the right, from consciously philosophical conservatives who read National Review etc. to people who just naturally incline in that direction, are quite level-headed. But there are a few exceptions. I just saw a Facebook post: "Remember Pence took the nanotech vaccine. He is under their control."
Posted by: Mac | 01/07/2021 at 12:09 PM
And then, from the left, also on Facebook: a picture of protesters lying on the floor of the capitol at police gunpoint, with the caption "Shoot them."
Posted by: Mac | 01/07/2021 at 12:12 PM
Doesn’t the vaccine use nano-tech? I wouldn’t get the covid jab if I was paid good money.
As for Pence et al, it seems they are under Democrat control one way or another. They disgust me. It seems obvious that the election was stolen. That seems to be an end of the republic (although I thought it ended with same sex “marriage” in 2015). Not that Australia is any better. Probably worse.
Posted by: Louise | 01/09/2021 at 04:00 AM
Thanks very much, Janet. It’s pretty dire.
Posted by: Louise | 01/09/2021 at 04:01 AM
“Nanotech” is a very broad term that applies to anything at that level of teeny-tinieness. I’m pretty sure that nanobots are still mostly science fiction. The idea that they could be used to control one’s mind is way beyond that. I’m a bit concerned about it because it was developed so quickly but not about it turning me into a zombie Democrat. :-)
Posted by: Mac | 01/09/2021 at 10:49 AM
And about the election: I think it's likely there was some fraud. But it's a long leap to claim that it was enough to swing the election. Several pro-Trump people, like Andrew McCarthy of National Review, have pointed this out. And I really doubt that there's a reasonable basis for Trump's claim he actually won in a landslide. That's just more of the b.s. that helped make him so popular with some and so hated by others. I hold him fundamentally responsible for his loss. I think he could have won, in spite of all the media distortions etc., if he could have stifled his inner jerk more often and more successfully.
And I've had the impression all along that the one thing he cannot endure is losing, which makes his self-sabotage ironic. He will most likely never admit that he lost the election.
I tend to agree with you about the significance of the same-sex marriage thing. Not so much the thing itself, but what it says about the state of the culture. But I felt pretty sure that battle was going to be lost long before it was, fifteen or so years ago when even Christians were saying "how would it hurt my marriage?" In my experience if a person doesn't see the fundamental contradiction in saying that two people of the same sex can be married, then he or she has lost sight of the basic concept. If it only means that two people love each other, then sure, anybody can "marry" anybody. (And why should it be limited to two?)
Posted by: Mac | 01/09/2021 at 03:27 PM
In about 2005 I interviewed a very prominent law professor for a Catholic publication. This law professor said that the pro-life cause would eventually win out, but that the gay marriage battle had already been lost. That was in 2005, mind you. There was already "no hope."
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/09/2021 at 04:00 PM
Yes, that’s the same period I was thinking of. He was right of course. I remember specifically reading Amy Welborn’s blog one day and seeing comments from practicing Catholics saying they didn’t see any objection, and thinking “we’re going to lose this argument.” More like “have already lost.”
Posted by: Mac | 01/09/2021 at 05:42 PM
You are a sexual, Mac
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/10/2021 at 09:11 PM
Change that to"sexist"
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/10/2021 at 09:12 PM
:-) No doubt, but I didn't say the people saying that were female. As I recall it was actually a mix at the time. Amy's blog was kind of a locus of Catholic discussion about church, politics, and so forth. Not nearly as much so now.
Posted by: Mac | 01/10/2021 at 09:55 PM
This is the sexist sentence. "He was right of course."
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/11/2021 at 02:47 PM
Oh, I see. The law professor was a woman?
Posted by: Mac | 01/11/2021 at 09:23 PM
I didn't say that.🙂
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 01/11/2021 at 10:39 PM
Sorry, let me change that. The law professor may have been of any gender, and it was despicable of me to assume which of the many available may have been appropriate for that person at that time, nor is that meant to imply that they are not now of another gender.
Posted by: Mac | 01/11/2021 at 11:37 PM
Ha! I remember how bizarre it was back in the 80's to see George Winston's disclaimer on his "Christmas" record December: "The inclusion of religious works on this record do not imply the acceptance or endorsement of any religion." That's not verbatim (I don't have the album handy to look for it) but it was something to that effect. I can remember being both annoyed and amused the first time I read it.
Posted by: Rob G | 01/12/2021 at 05:49 AM
I remember a quip from someone back when the "inclusive language" debate was raging. Something about inclusive language never being completely victorious so long as a woman would not jump into a cage labeled "Man-eating tiger."
Posted by: Rob G | 01/12/2021 at 05:55 AM
Or swim where there were man-eating sharks.
I played that George Winston album sometime during the holidays, and said to my wife that the disclaimer you mention was the first occurrence I remember noticing of the squeamishness about the association between Christmas and Winter Holiday.
By the way, my pronouns are "mac" and "mac".
Posted by: Mac | 01/12/2021 at 08:24 AM