[conservatism_IS_compassion]

any dialogue [of civilizations] must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.

. . . If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — . . . a genuine dialogue of civilizations [cannot exist].

A "philosopher" is one who does not claim to be wise (which would be arrogant) but claims only to love wisdom. If everyone can have their own "truth," what can "wisdom" possibly mean? What would there be to love in such a as that?

The author notes that this "third point" of Benedict XVI "has been almost entirely ignored." Which is only to be expected of the sophists whose argument begins and ends with their own claim of their own wisdom. They call it "objectivity," but they mean nothing else. Their "argument" is

• I am wise.
• You disagree with me.
• Therefore you are foolish. QED

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts! </sarcasm>

There is journalism's "objectivity."

[excludethis]

The Pope was clearly talking about our LIBERAL democrats when he said: "If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself."

[L,TOWM]

First point is, this looks to be an editorial piece, so by definition it is not "hard news journalism".

The second point is, the author is correct. Any society which does not claim "a truth" cannot debate "the truth" with another society. The sickening brew of post-modernism and relativism is the root of Mikey Moore being able to call Iraqi terrorists "freedom fighters" on par with our mimutemen and become rich doing so, with half the country thinking he is wise.

People on this site, for the most part, have no idea how uncomfortable most people in this nation get when you actually insist that there is a clear cut right and wrong.

[maica]

Good comment.


You have summarized what passes for discussion today for libs.
They prioritize their feelings over their thoughts because no one can contradict one's feelings, as one could debate another's thinking.


George Weigel is valuable reading for understanding Vatican matters. I'm actually surprised that the LATimes and their sister papers have published this.