XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   On 14-6-2014 19:24, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:49:14 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >> On 12-6-2014 19:01, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:02:46 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>> On 3-6-2014 18:51, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>>>> That Lewis asserted above that "God does not exist" "is a factual   
   >>>>> statement that most people would not accept" is a fact, although the   
   >>>>> statement itself doesn't make sense (are we really to believe that a   
   >>>>> non-falsifiable statement is to be considered a fact because most   
   >>>>> people would /not/ accept it? or is the "not" a tyope?).   
   >>>> Not because of it. But it's a fact that most people believe in some god   
   >>>> or other. That doesn't change the fact of these god's existence.   
   >>> Ah ... so, then, are we to infer that he is boasting of his   
   >>> supposedly-superior intellect, in that he "knows" as a "fact"   
   >>> something that most people do not accept, thus putting him one-up on   
   >>> hoi polloi?   
   >> That's how I took it, yes. Incidentally, I think the same way. But I do   
   >> hope I sound less like an ass over it.   
   > Your hope is justified.   
      
   Phew.   
      
   > I was wondering if I was getting a bit over-sensitized to elitism,   
   > since, on the one hand, I am reading Hegel in the Great Books   
   > collection, and, on the other hand, am reading a small book of   
   > Tillich's last few essays/addresses in a different series.   
      
   I'm usually quite a fan of elitism, provided it's based on something. In   
   that case, they're elite for a reason. Old money: no good reason.   
   Extensive knowledge: a good reason. When it comes to politics and   
   science, I defer to the elite (or even consider myself part of them).   
   When it comes to art, I'm undecided.   
      
   > I can't honestly say that I understand either of them, but Hegel is   
   > definitely elitist (he is documented as stating that no female can   
   > ever be educated to the point of, presumably, understanding him),   
      
   Yeah, not a good reason.   
      
   > and Tillich is complaining about (presumably uncultured and, from the   
   > Liberal Arts viewpoint, under-educated) rocket and atomic scientists   
   > being listened to in preference to the highly-educated,   
   > supurbly-cultured elites, who, of course, can do nothing practical   
   > like design rockets or nuclear bombs, in one essay.   
      
   Heh.   
      
   > The ancient Christian assertion that the war was /won/ for all time by   
   > the death & resurrection of Jesus is, apparently, not acceptable to   
   > the most highly-cultivated persons, who apparently prefer a more   
   > dynamic approach, in which the strength of the forces of good and evil   
   > increases more or less in lockstep. IIRC, this places them somewhere   
   > in Manichaeanism, or, at least, some Manichaeanistic version of   
   > Christianity.   
      
   I didn't quite follow that. I don't believe in a war between good and   
   evil anyway.   
      
   Did I ever mention I'm a cognitive psychologist by education? I do not   
   like philosophy. The philosphy I've encountered considers knowledge as   
   an abstract concept independent of the one being knowledgeable, or the   
   ways in which this person acquires knowledge. I view knowledge as a   
   function of the brain, and hence something that must be seen in the   
   light of biological reality (which includes both "wetware" and   
   evolution). That's another way of saying fuck that shit. I admit that   
   there are more constructive ways to have this discussion.   
      
   > So I suspect that I am inclined to see (and distrust) elitist   
   > attitudes even where they do not exist, at least at the moment and for   
   > another month or so (till I finish Hegel), after which things should   
   > return more-or-less to normal.   
      
   Self-knowledge is a good thing.   
      
   > And was Hegel /really/ so stupid that he thought he could serve up   
   > what appears to be not much more than warmed-over Plotinus, with   
   > additions from Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, thinly   
   > disguised as some sort of Christianity, and conclude that German   
   > culture was the very Pinnacle of History and of the development of the   
   > World-Soul (it appears to me that that is where he is heading) and   
   > /nobody would notice that it was his own culture he was elevating to   
   > this position/?   
      
   Er... maybe?   
      
   > But the, Kant was much the same: all that analysis,   
   > and he ends up "proving" is, clearly, that the traditional values he   
   > grew up with are the only possible values.   
      
   Yes! Yes! True knowledge is brutal. If it doesn't grind your worldview   
   to pieces you're not doing it right.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)