Posted on 09/28/2001 12:26:25 PM PDT by Fury
I am a very open minded person. I would love for you to explain to me, what falculty you use to know something is true, if you do not use the faculty of reason? If your idea of faith is not synonymous with superstition, please explain the difference.?
Hank
Secondly, the world in theory must be held to be always the same. The method requires this. The crisis of exegesis is a crisis of the philosophical presuppositions that guide its method by which it reaches conclusions such as that Jesus did not affirm His own divinity. "The problem of exegesis is connected ... with the problem of philosophy. The indigence of philosophy ... has turned into the indigence of our faith. The faith cannot be liberated if reason itself does not open up again." Reason, in other words, knowing itself, must see that it is grounded in what is, over which it has no control. What is controls what we know and not vice versa. The exclusion any reality, however, is contrary to the object of reason itself . "Human reason is not an autonomous absolute." Ratzinger thinks that scholastic philosophy in the Twentieth Century in a sense failed because it tried to do the impossible, that is, provide a totally rational ground of the faith that a priori excluded the possibility of faith's openness to reason.On understanding Current Intellectual Movements-Cardinal Ratzinger on the Modern MindYet, it was reality, not reason, that decided that to which reason was open. And reality included the reality of God and His activity in time. Faith cares for and about reason. "It is not the lesser function of the faith to care for reason as such. It does not do violence to it; it is not external to it; rather, it makes it return to itself." Thus, faith can liberate reason from itself by asking it questions that it could not itself have anticipated, yet about which it can consider. "Reason will not be saved without the faith, but the faith without reason will not be human."
You comment is not a negation of his. The truth is, the old militant Arab civilization is fighting a losing battle for survival, and the main "attack", although the attackers themselves don't even know they're attacking anything(or perhaps they're attacking Christianity and the effect splashes onto Islam), is in the culture. Western culture has such influence that other cultures, such as Islam, are being flooded with new elements they cannot absorb without losing the things that were most important to their traditional self-definitions.
But the West itself contains some tendencies that might, if left unchanged, bring about a Rome-style decline(the early stages have probably begun, but we are by no means close to the point of no return). If Islam can survive its immediate crises, it just might win. Or maybe not.
Sure the French were Catholics, so the Congregationalists wouldn't like them, but the Congregationalists also had disputes with Anglicans, Presbyterians, and other denominations. Numerically, Congregationalists were a minority in the nation as a whole.
It would be better to say large portions of the West. Or maybe you have the same distinction in mind I do when you use the phrase "secular West", which would be different from the Christian West.
Perhaps the same distinction is at work in Islam? The moderate Muslims, on the one hand, have picked up our bad habits, while the radical Muslims prefer the bad habits they've inherated from their ancestors. Their bad habits, such as killing infidels and political backwardness, aggressive bad habits, aren't the kind that are fatal to a civilization, unless they lead you to attack another civilization strong enough to crush you with minimal effort, which they've done, although we probably won't actually destroy them. It would be easy for us: nuke Mecca. We did it to the old Japanese culture when we made the emperor admit he wasn't god. The root of a culture is the cult, the religion, or, in more secular terms, the framework the world is seen through.
Smartertimes.com picked out some of the same things you did. If the Times is smart, they'll get Jane Jacobs to write a response to this. But would she even bother with it?
The fascinating thing about the US is that it seems to be so many things to people. There is so much that is good and valuable about the country. But some people, when they come to rediscover America, seem to value it precisely in so far as it overturns older moral norms, values and systems. There's so much of value in our American freedom. It allows us to practice religion freely, to raise families, live together in communities, make just laws, provide for ourselves. To do what people have always done with with more freedom here, more comfort or security there. But I don't trust those who emphasize the destructive or even the transforming aspect of our freedom.
Our journalistic warriors seem to be building consensus around how different our wealth and freedom make us from the rest of the world. It might be well to reflect on our continuity with past generations as something which keeps us human and gives us something in common with other people. I don't want to sing Kumbaya and talk about the brotherhood of man, etc., but can't help thinking that the present conflict ought to be more about the immediate and human dangers and losses than about abstract and impersonal ideas and systems and forces. Impersonal forces may be used and may bring good, but one can't wholly trust them and ought not wholly to devote oneself to them or demand that others do so.
But the Turks had adopted the same culture. The Arabs saw them as fellow Muslims and sons of Isaac.
Jude Wanniski calls them the Evil Empire, for this and also for the high human toll that IMF policies bring about.
Thanks. Jude is correct on this, as he usually is on many things. He is a great mind. But then, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that enormous VAT taxes will stifle an emerging economy.
Among other things, most of the ecnomic basket case countries have no effective revenue collection system. Their societies are simply too corrupt to effect that. Russia is a prime example. So a policy prescription of raising taxes, even assuming arguendo such were desired, would be a chimera.
Fair enough. You have given a civil answer and I will respond in a like manner. I understand the argument, but emerging economies I monitored closely functioned best and created the most wealth, most evenly spread, when collection was given a back seat in favor of near elimination of taxes, including VAT. Evidence: Albania 1993-1995, the highest growth rates in Europe and probably on earth. Great economic success was due to near absense of taxation and acceptance that whatever taxes were due would likely not be collected. Places like Hungary, which had good enforcement in relative terms and a very high tax and VAT rate, experienced considerable contraction of their economies, to the point where they are still not back to pre-1989 levels. High taxes in emerging economies is a recipe for corruption, economic disparity, and disaster.
Regards,
Gray Article
Thanks!
The fascinating thing about the US is that it seems to be so many things to people. There is so much that is good and valuable about the country. But some people, when they come to rediscover America, seem to value it precisely in so far as it overturns older moral norms, values and systems.
I am afraid I have nothing substantive to add other than this is a brilliant observation, and one I have experienced in a different way as a long-term American abroad. America was, especially to the reconstituted left in the former communist world, the apex of progressivity. Any repulsive policy or sex-filled culture or other rot that occured in their country and happened to be regarded negatively by the local population was defended fiercely as "just like in America." They, likely as a function of necessity, though perhaps for more devious reasons, could not help to slice the slice of America they could most use.
Anyway, wonderful little truism here. Thanks.
Not obviously poignant, but nevertheless possibly enlightening to those of us who might disagree with the author's contention (and that of GW himself) that we are at war with people who's motivations are primarily envy and totalitarian fervor against antithetical cultures(as if!).
The old saying applies about the lobster jumping out of the pot of boiling water, yet remains to be cooked alive if the temperature is raised gradually. We live in such a moral dump these days many people don't realize it; we've become acclimated to our decay and decadence. What's truly interesting about Our Lady's message to the children is that it was delivered to Portugal--The West. And the war was to punish us. Clearly does not jive with our self-congratulatory cheerleaders here on FR. I know that prophecies from Our Lady has little cache in the realm of politics, I thought you might enjoy this.
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.