tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post3076485474142904565..comments2023-04-10T04:41:45.293-04:00Comments on Triangulations: The Moral Certitude of Modernitymikhailbakuninhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-52096946691675347932009-10-26T23:37:21.349-04:002009-10-26T23:37:21.349-04:00I agree with you.
I wouldn't call myself a po...I agree with you.<br /><br />I wouldn't call myself a postmodernist, but I don't really know enough about postmodernism to reject the label. I'm certainly not interested in deconstructing all social doctrines to the point of abstraction . . . but that's probably an unfair characterization of postmodernism.<br /><br />Anyway, what I'd prefer is something akin to Andrew Sullivan's Conservatism of Doubt. I really do believe that the world needs <i>a lot more</i> epistemological uncertainty.mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-75449875393176377592009-10-26T22:34:43.918-04:002009-10-26T22:34:43.918-04:00Jer, since when are you some kind of post-modernis...Jer, since when are you some kind of post-modernist, denying objective truth and epistemological certainty? You sound like Karl Popper in these posts, directing your ire at anyone who claims complete knowledge or certitude. That's not to say I disagree - I see it in a similar way. Understanding and forgiveness come from compassion, and compassion depends on accepting those who differ instead of condemning them. It also means letting go of moral judgment, something liberals and conservatives are loath to do.JBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-84185948824883095702009-10-26T22:25:57.069-04:002009-10-26T22:25:57.069-04:00Self-righteousness on both sides is loathsome. I f...Self-righteousness on both sides is loathsome. I feel that we can't have much-needed conversations without offending someone. Political correctness is strangling any sort of real progress that we should be making. I think to some degree we need to suspend the desire to correct others and let them express their thoughts before we immediately dismiss their comments as being insensitive.Ms. Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09276055804013836353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-10159959564212889642009-10-26T22:09:01.728-04:002009-10-26T22:09:01.728-04:00Basing one's argument on semantics is entirely...Basing one's argument on semantics is entirely the problem that Robinson is bringing up. For example, instead of saying something is, "bad," prigs would argue that we must say, "double-plus ungood."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-70346772481378932682009-10-26T11:28:00.009-04:002009-10-26T11:28:00.009-04:00I think Robinson is arguing that one philosophical...I think Robinson is arguing that one philosophical tradition gives "grounds" for forgiveness and understanding, while the other basically demands self-righteousness.<br /><br />This isn't a reactionary vision -- at least not from my perspective. <br /><br />It's not about returning to a kinder, gentler era that was somehow less ideological. And Robinson isn't suggesting that we should all aim to become Puritans because Puritans were more virtuous <i>in practice</i>. Indeed, that would contradict the theme of her essay.<br /><br />I think Robinson is really using the term "modern" to refer to the modernist tradition (and modernist thinkers like Darwin and Marx) who espoused a unique kind of intellectual positivism -- the idea that objective truth exists and we can discover it. For Marx, there could be no compromise once we'd ascertained the Truth. Metaphysical positivism leads inevitably to revolution. <br /><br />I'm sure other intellectual traditions have asserted that "all things can be known" -- certainly materialism existed before Marx -- but this was really the <i>key</i> feature of modernist thought. <br /><br />And I think that this idea has seeped into contemporary society chiefly through the modernist tradition.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11002867859763616904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-22162477973193163882009-10-26T06:47:29.977-04:002009-10-26T06:47:29.977-04:00But I wouldn't get too hung up on Robinson'...<i>But I wouldn't get too hung up on Robinson's terminology, as imprecise as it may be.</i><br /><br />I would, simply because the article and the letter (and your own liking of it) seem to be tied to the idea that yesteryear was better - that people were more understanding and forgiving because they were Puritans and not prigs, when in reality, the idea that we were all sinners didn't really help with that at all. As a philosophy, religions with a Calvinist base didn't have forgiveness or understanding as their underpinnings.<br /><br />It isn't like Puritans didn't weed out bad ideas or bad people. It isn't like they let Anne Hutchinson stay. And it isn't like doing that wasn't a part of their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Our contemporaries are very much like our predecessors. The ideologies may change, but the priggishness that comes along with believing your ideology is <b>the</b> ideology doesn't really.<br /><br />So, in comparing our contemporaries to our predecessors and finding our contemporaries lacking by Puritanical standards, well, her argument for why the 1600s had better people is fundamentally flawed.<br /><br />As for your assertion that forgiveness and understanding aren't virtues any longer, I would be interested to know at what points in history did members of ideological sects - political or otherwise - consistently practice those virtues. The only example I can come up with is Reconstruction and allowing the South back into the country under full statehood after the Civil War; and even that one is based on possibly Lincoln's forgiveness and understanding but also probably on his pragmatism. And its continuation under Johnson more due to his Southern sympathies than his forgiveness and compassion. I'm not saying there isn't such a time, but none come readily to mind.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-30410867695954339652009-10-25T23:26:39.692-04:002009-10-25T23:26:39.692-04:00Yeah, I think Robinson is really using "Purit...Yeah, I think Robinson is really using "Puritan" as a kind of shorthand to describe a particular ideological premise that the Puritans espoused through their theology. The Puritan concepts of sin and grace are essentially tied to forgiveness and understanding. <br /><br />Certainly, you're right that the Puritan separatists who came to America didn't quite live up to those ideals -- or so it would seem, from what little I know of them. <br /><br />But I wouldn't get too hung up on Robinson's terminology, as imprecise as it may be.mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-19079254583593779792009-10-25T20:55:52.962-04:002009-10-25T20:55:52.962-04:00Forgiveness and understanding are no longer virtue...<i>Forgiveness and understanding are no longer virtues.</i><br /><br />I don't really know how one gets forgiveness or understanding from the Puritanical way of life. Self-righteousness and moral certitude almost certainly describe Puritans and Puritan leaders especially as well - if not better - than anyone alive today.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.com