Catholicism and Politics - Interesting Segment with Bishop Robert Barron (4 Viewers)

[wardorican]

Start from about 3min in, where I'm linking this. The first bit is about a bible they put out.



First, I found his early discussion on the nature of political debate being mostly a conflict of wills, of experiences, and how that's not helpful. It's the breakdown of real argument.

So, the way past that is to refuse to cooperate in that verbal violence. don't make it will vs will, experience vs experience. Appeal to values in common, e.g. propose various objective values. A few posters are better than others at this, but I see many try. It really does sum up where political talk goes bad, without directly criticizing that.

Later it gets into Catholic teaching, and politics. Somewhat lightly, since the main idea is that they'll never tell you who to vote for, and the truth is, neither party bats 1000 with the church, so both are generally equally valid.

I thought it was an interesting chat.

I've caught a few other chats with him that are good. He makes an interesting point about the Church having a high bar of expectations, but also lavishly gives divine mercy when we fail.

 

[insidejob]

In my opinion moral and immoral; good and bad; and right and wrong are all subjective value judgements, so nothing is ever objectively any of those things

IMO, I really have a difficult time having any kind of honest conversation that's personal to me with anyone who doesn't subscribe to this belief.

It may have been you, maybe not, who mentioned earlier in the thread (hope it was this thread...) that awareness can't make an addict stop using. While true, awareness is absolutely key to stopping an addict who got clean from getting loaded again in the first place. That same awareness has to be applied to any and everything you think about yourself and others if you want to understand the Truth (capital T) beneath whatever it is you or they're trying to express.

Problem is, when you have a vastly different experience with the topic at hand (a la this thread for me) I have my own capital T Truth with the OP and have serious trouble giving two squirts of piss about anything someone so indoctrinated into the Catholic dogma had to say about anything outside of his "praying on Sunday will save your soul after Saturday is gone" wheelhouse.

 

[Ayo]

In my opinion moral and immoral; good and bad; and right and wrong are all subjective value judgements, so nothing is ever objectively any of those things.

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
- Hamlet

 

[zztop]

I know ya'll are having a serious discussion but...



Pat Robertson said God told him Trump will win the election

and then:

2 assassination attempts on Trump, followed by a world war with china, followed by a war against Israel vs the Muslims, followed by peace (because presumably all the Muslims were killed - by god), followed by the world ending from an asteroid hitting the earth

I wasn't sure where to put this exactly, but didn't want to start a new topic just for this insightful information that ol' Pat bestowed upon us

 

[Complex Kid]

Well this should be interesting.

Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples

“Homosexuals have a right to be part of the family,” the pontiff said in “Francesco,” a documentary about his life.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[SystemShock]

I know ya'll are having a serious discussion but...



Pat Robertson said God told him Trump will win the election

and then:

2 assassination attempts on Trump, followed by a world war with china, followed by a war against Israel vs the Muslims, followed by peace (because presumably all the Muslims were killed - by god), followed by the world ending from an asteroid hitting the earth

I wasn't sure where to put this exactly, but didn't want to start a new topic just for this insightful information that ol' Pat bestowed upon us

They are so desperate to see the world burn. They can't wait for of all us heathen to go to hell. Because that is what the prophesy says.

 

[SystemShock]

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
- Hamlet

Just like there is a tweet for everything Trump, there seems to be a Shakespeare quote for every situation.

 

[Brennan77]

I don’t understand the word “dialogue” as being inextricably linked to truth.

and I still don’t see any justification other than “it means something different now” but you cited the Greek etymology.

it Ends up being convoluted and inhibits meaning and understanding.

I think this is a worn topic that isnt going to go anywhere but the reason I mention it is because it illustrates the point I made earlier about language.

you’re pressing some argument about a word’s meaning ex post facto but suggesting the origins of the word had some implication.

I’m still not sure the relevance of the origin to your definition. If you’re going to talk about how it colloquially evolved, then what does the origin do for your argument?

Just say that dialogue requires some truth or in order to avoid bad faith (I can have a dialogue with the intent to distort or deceive) it has to aspire toward truth.

that’s all you need.

instead we’re hammering it out over a root of a word and we can’t agree on that. So where do we go from there for the actual word?

personally, I have “dialogue” all the time that isnt a pirsuit of truth, which is more than merely being honest. I dont see how “truth” or truth seeking is a de facto prerequisite for “dialogue”

then again I am on record as being skeptical of some objective, ideal truth. And even if there was, I have no faith in myself to define it.

i realize I’m belaboring the point but I think it’s a good example of how language, itself, makes so much of this difficult. And if there is a truth, it’s beyond language To adequately describe it. Maybe we can intuit it on some level. But I’m skeptical of having it explained to me.

From Merriam Webster
"Middle English dialoge, from Anglo-French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak — "

So I stand by my representation of the etymology of dialogue as helpful to understanding the broader point of the purpose of the act of dialogue itself. We don't need to explore it much more because it's getting off the subject at this point. But I will leave you a link that helps to get at what I am intending, if you are interested.

What is Dialogue? | Difficult Dialogues | Clark University

www2.clarku.edu

"Dialogue" comes from the Greek word dialogos . Logos means 'the word', or in our case we would think of 'the meaing of the word'. And dia means through'—it doesn't mean 'two'.... The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And this shared meaning is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together.

At any rate, you seem to understand what I am saying just fine. The point I am making is that when we engage with others in bad faith, using language as a means to influence and manipulate rather than to enter relationship that communicates and discovers truth, we tear down part of what it means to be human. And by doing so we attack the very fabric of society. It's a dangerous thing that leads to tyranny.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well this should be interesting.

Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples

“Homosexuals have a right to be part of the family,” the pontiff said in “Francesco,” a documentary about his life.

www.nbcnews.com

To be clear though, he's not endorsing same sex "marriage". The Church sees that as a religious function.

Either way, those who despise Francis (i.e., the hard line conservative wing) are going to hate him even more.

Francis easily makes me forget about John Paul II. Easily my favorite Pope.

 

[Ayo]

Just like there is a tweet for everything Trump, there seems to be a Shakespeare quote for every situation.

Me and Will are like BFFs....

 

[JimEverett]

when JE starts waxing philosophically, I get all giddy like a schoolgirl

Lol. Metaethics makes me giddy as well.

 

[Ayo]

The point I am making is that when we engage with others in bad faith, using language as a means to influence and manipulate rather than to enter relationship that communicates and discovers truth, we tear down part of what it means to be human. And by doing so we attack the very fabric of society. It's a dangerous thing that leads to tyranny.

this doesn't vibe with my experience and work in sociology and anthropology. And that might be where the primary disconnect is coming from. I don't think if dialogue as necessary for being "human" and that mutes, pre- and post-verbal, ASL-users, people using different languages, people sharing quasi-literacy between them, etc are capable of the same amount of being 'human' without ever uttering a word.

And I know you're saying that it's with the intent when language is used, and so people who don't/can't/only partially use a language, well it doesn't apply to them, but how do they gain access, then, to that core cache of humanity?

I don't think we can access truth readily nor easily. And I don't think it's a requisite of dialogue. And I don't think that makes us less human - but I might be going further back on my hominid scale than you are. But "society" that has "humanity" can exist with no words and then we get into intent of parties.

So if truth is objective, then why does it require such a subjective manner of access and requiring some authentic intent that might be hidden through deception or equivocation or sarcasm or any other number of situations that could be what I'd call "authentic" but aren't about honesty/truth?

The final step to 'very fabric of society' and 'tyranny' is, for me, laying it on too thick. This discussion started with a questionable etymological foundation to make the point more solid and is ending with the shredding of social fabric and the invitation of tyranny.

I don't think we require an absolute truth to avoid those things. In fact, from my approach, every day we don't have tyranny and a ripped social fabric, we manage to do it with a ton of un-truths all over with a truth that I still think is largely inaccessible.

I wonder, when you talk about the degradation of society, though, when would you point to a time/place where the social fabric wasn't "attacked"?

The anthropological tapestry of humanity on Earth is pretty damn tattered and I'd personally have a tough time pointing to finding a piece in tact enough that would keep me warm in the winter.

 

[SystemShock]

To be clear though, he's not endorsing same sex "marriage". The Church sees that as a religious function.

Either way, those who despise Francis (i.e., the hard line conservative wing) are going to hate him even more.

Francis easily makes me forget about John Paul II. Easily my favorite Pope.

Those darned progressive Jesuits

When I first enrolled at Loyola, I wasn't too thrilled with having to take 9 credits of religion classes. But they turned out to be very different from what I thought they were going to be. I'd do them a disservice saying they made me an atheist, but rather, I will give them credit for exposing me to other religions, their philosophies, and - for lack of a better description - teaching me not what to think, but how to think.

 

[Ayo]

Lol. Metaethics makes me giddy as well.

So, I am not the philosopher you are, but I am wondering about a book that might be the most compelling philosophical book I've read in a long time.

I have read a lot of existentialism and the predecessors of existentialism, but there was a HUGE blind spot when it came to de Beauvoir. So, in an attempt to rectify that, I was wondering if you'd read her Ethics of Ambiguity.

For me, it really addresses one of my major difficulties with existentialism and she did it in a way that was pretty damn straightforward. I found that Camus and Sartre sorta kicked that can down the road, but she took it head on. And I need to read it a second time (at least), but it was pretty revelatory to me.

 

[Ayo]

From Merriam Webster
"Middle English dialoge, from Anglo-French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak — "

So I stand by my representation of the etymology of dialogue as helpful to understanding the broader point of the purpose of the act of dialogue itself. We don't need to explore it much more because it's getting off the subject at this point. But I will leave you a link that helps to get at what I am intending, if you are interested.

What is Dialogue? | Difficult Dialogues | Clark University

www2.clarku.edu

At any rate, you seem to understand what I am saying just fine. The point I am making is that when we engage with others in bad faith, using language as a means to influence and manipulate rather than to enter relationship that communicates and discovers truth, we tear down part of what it means to be human. And by doing so we attack the very fabric of society. It's a dangerous thing that leads to tyranny.

I also feel like I should clarify something for Brennan (and anyone else) - I am *really* enjoying the discussion. And I don't want my replies to seem off putting, but I know how they are and how I (can) come across. I've done some reflection on that and I've basically arrived at a place where I think two things contribute to it.

The first is that at work, things get *very* tense at times. When we argue and disagree, it can get heated and there's a lot of that brought home, whether it's here on the boards or even at home (much to my wife's chagrin). Or it's from athletics where I can get into a heated moment with a fellow coach or opposing coach or player.

I often cite Eminem: "What's a little fight? Tomorrow you'll be boys again"

I really enjoy and respect the perspectives and thoughts, even in disagreement, when they come from a genuine and fruitful place. And I think @Brennan77 does that pretty consistently. The fact that he takes time to reply and explain is appreciated.

And the second place is a holdover from being a poor kid at school. When I went to the 'good' public school (read: white) and started doing well, it was because I wore clothes from Walmart and was poor and the teachers pitied me.

It couldn't be because I was smart!

Well, that spite fueled me for a long time, and a LOT of school later I still feel just as stupid. lol... joke is on me.

So I think I will posture as if I have to 'defend' my position or legitimate it. And so I try and throw everything I can think of into a response, but the net effect of that - if it's even read - can come across as condescending, obnoxious blowhard.

tl; dr - thanks, I'm sincerely enjoying this

 

[JimEverett]

So, I am not the philosopher you are, but I am wondering about a book that might be the most compelling philosophical book I've read in a long time.

I have read a lot of existentialism and the predecessors of existentialism, but there was a HUGE blind spot when it came to de Beauvoir. So, in an attempt to rectify that, I was wondering if you'd read her Ethics of Ambiguity.

For me, it really addresses one of my major difficulties with existentialism and she did it in a way that was pretty damn straightforward. I found that Camus and Sartre sorta kicked that can down the road, but she took it head on. And I need to read it a second time (at least), but it was pretty revelatory to me.

I don't think I have read anything by de Beauvoir.
I have read some Existentialist philosophy - but that has been on my own or in undergraduate courses, but have never really studied it academically.
In the current state of philosophy, there is a division between "analytic" philosophy and "contininental" philosophy. The analytic tradition can be traced probably to Frege/Bertrand Russel, Wittgenstein, and the Logical Positivists. The continental tradition can be traced, I think, more to Hegel, Husserl, perhaps Nietzsche (although analytic people study him today), and the existentialists. Academically there are few places that study both in their graduate program.
All my work is squarely within the analytic tradition.

 

[JimEverett]

I also feel like I should clarify something for Brennan (and anyone else) - I am *really* enjoying the discussion. And I don't want my replies to seem off putting, but I know how they are and how I (can) come across. I've done some reflection on that and I've basically arrived at a place where I think two things contribute to it.

The first is that at work, things get *very* tense at times. When we argue and disagree, it can get heated and there's a lot of that brought home, whether it's here on the boards or even at home (much to my wife's chagrin). Or it's from athletics where I can get into a heated moment with a fellow coach or opposing coach or player.

I often cite Eminem: "What's a little fight? Tomorrow you'll be boys again"

I really enjoy and respect the perspectives and thoughts, even in disagreement, when they come from a genuine and fruitful place. And I think @Brennan77 does that pretty consistently. The fact that he takes time to reply and explain is appreciated.

And the second place is a holdover from being a poor kid at school. When I went to the 'good' public school (read: white) and started doing well, it was because I wore clothes from Walmart and was poor and the teachers pitied me.

It couldn't be because I was smart!

Well, that spite fueled me for a long time, and a LOT of school later I still feel just as stupid. lol... joke is on me.

So I think I will posture as if I have to 'defend' my position or legitimate it. And so I try and throw everything I can think of into a response, but the net effect of that - if it's even read - can come across as condescending, obnoxious blowhard.

tl; dr - thanks, I'm sincerely enjoying this

I think I got along fairly well my first few years in grad school simply because people heard my deep southern drawl and were surprised that anything halfway intelligent could come out of my mouth so it bumped me up a few notches beyond what I should have been.

 

[wardorican]

To be clear though, he's not endorsing same sex "marriage". The Church sees that as a religious function.

Either way, those who despise Francis (i.e., the hard line conservative wing) are going to hate him even more.

Francis easily makes me forget about John Paul II. Easily my favorite Pope.

I'm not sure this will add more hate towards him. I think this follows very closely to what the church teaches, and what the Bishop in this video was saying about the church's teachings on this subject.

It's a different video I can post later.

 

[Ayo]

I think I got along fairly well my first few years in grad school simply because people heard my deep southern drawl and were surprised that anything halfway intelligent could come out of my mouth so it bumped me up a few notches beyond what I should have been.

this was *exactly* my experience

I remember when I was giving my first conference presentation up here - I was excited to do so. And it went, I felt, really well. I was talking about Hurricane Katrina and media coverage and distortions, so it was about something local and about which I felt strongly.

And that always my accent even more pronounced.

So I imagine I sounded thoroughly, unmistakably Southern.

After the presentation, some lady came up to me and said - in a gracious tone - "When you started talking, I wasn't sure what to expect but that was really informative and interesting!"

Translation: You sounded like a total hick but congratulations, you're not stupid!

Thanks?