Posted on 01/29/2017 9:40:43 PM PST by Olog-hai
The MSM is the Country’s greatest threat.
Parent companies that employ these a-holes: Disney, Comcast, Time Warner. Don’t pay these companies to piss in your shoes.
An example of leftist projection.
journalist in name only
The cultural marxist totalitarian media desperately attempting to reinvent itself to get back the Walter Cronkite credibility of the past.
Miserable failure.
“Projection” much?
the idea that there’s a thing called ‘truth’ — an absolute value that lives above and apart from the world of framing and spin.”. . . has a name. It is called, “philosophy” - the love (philosopher) of wisdom (soph being the root of the Greek meaning “wisdom”).If you love wisdom you love truth and logic and despise sophistry, a word derived from the Greek “sophists” - who, claiming to be wise rather than modestly declaring themselves open to facts and logic in debate, practically invented “the world of framing and spin.”
Author Tom Johnson, you may be onto something. Become a philosopher and eschew sophistry. Great idea!
But, there is a catch. To be a philosopher you actually have to listen as well as talk. And you know what you do when you listen? You learn. Which means, you change your mind sometimes. There is a genre of broadcasting known as “talk radio.” The distinguishing characteristic of the talk radio format is a host who listens to callers even if they disagree with them. And, rather than using straw man arguments to belittle the caller, the talk show host debates the caller respectfully.
To do the job of the talk show host you have to be a philosopher, willing to learn as well as to dish it out. If you don’t take on all comers, the audience will realize that your call screener is protecting you from debating many articulate people who disagree with him/her. The history of talk radio is that no one able to thrive in that format will be considered - or will claim to be - “objective.” There is a reason for that.
To be a philosopher you have to be candid about the reasons why you might not be objective. For example, if a journalist were candid about it he would recognize that he has been taught - for valid business reasons - to be negative towards society. And the other side of that coin is that the journalist - who gives good PR to one politician and bad PR to another - assumes that the government is controllable by journalists, and therefore is predisposed to consider government good. Government exists to control evil in society and in from the world outside its borders, so the journalist - to be candid about the reasons he might not be objective - would have to declare that as a bias to be accounted for when evaluating his statements.
So, yes - by all means, accept "the idea that there’s a thing called ‘truth’ — an absolute value that lives above and apart from the world of framing and spin.” Reject spin - even the “spin” that journalists are more objective than anyone who is not a journalist. Become a philosopher - and, if you stay in the business of public discussion of issues, become a talk show host. Because wire service journalism will expel you from their “objective journalism” fraternity, and label you a “conservative."
An advisor to the President used the phrase “alternative facts” to mean essentially alternative points. Now the liberal media wants to create an entire chapter of American history out of their distorted interpretation of Conway’s statement.
The essence of progressivism is to deny true meaning. So what Conway meant is ignored while a preferred, counterfeit meaning is invented.
The LEFT invented “moral relativism”. Conservatives believe in Moral absolutes, Logic, Ethics, Critical Thinking, Natural Law, The Bible.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[a]20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called,both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called.Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
27 But God chose the foolishthings of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.
30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[b]
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
29 so that no one may boast before him.Quite (I would capitalize “Him).But note, the philosopher is far more humble than the sophist - the sophist is systematically arrogant, and the philosopher reacts against that arrogance not by replying in kind, but by insisting that ad hominem attacks be dispensed with, and that the (human, granted) logic and (humanly known) facts should control in human deliberations.
Belief in the resurrection of Christ is “unreasonable” and, according to the Bible, supernatural - the work of the Holy Spirit. But that does not make the Bible illogical, only that the Bible makes arguments “If Christ be preached, that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection?” which presuppose the truth of the resurrection.
I do not see philosophical reflection (as I outlined it) as inimical to Christianity. Sophistry is considerably more suspect in my mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.