(Senator Kemple= italics)
“Hopefully you recall what. Hartmann said yesterday about Israeli politics: that they do not hold themselves responsible for the deaths of Israeli prisoners because they do not negotiate. Really, what does it mean to act practically? It means to act for the sake of usefulness, i.e., at achieving some end. Negotiating an exchange of prisoners, or with terrorists, would be practical in saving lives; it is not practical in dissuading terrorists (which can be told from practical experience); but it is extremely practical within the framework of an ideal, namely that no nation or people should be subject to terrorism (or more specifically in the case of Israel, no Israeli... but it applies in a broader sense, as well).”
If the end is the Good, if it’s God’s will, then what is wrong with acting practically? What other end would I be talking about? You seem to think that I by charity, I mean that no one feels bad or is unhappy or has no discomfort or ill-feelings toward each other or that there's no pain or something. That is definitely not what I mean. I don’t think an ideal world has much room for that kind of charity (if it can be even called charity). Yes, there are different forms of executing charity: I’ll bet that St. John Vianney didn’t hit every single drunkard without discretion. There are some people you have to be forceful with; there are some that it’s better to be gentle with. Like Hartmann said today, you may know the universal, but you need to act with practical knowledge in the particular because the universal may not be appropriate to the particular. Every action has a practical implication and in order to strive for an ideal world, those have to considered. You can’t strive an ideal without considering what is or what will be after another part of the equation is added (the action). In the case of the prisoners, if we know that negotiating with terrorist is not going to lead the right end (an end of hostilities, death, war, religious persecution), then it would not be practical to negotiate as it would lead to exactly the opposite of the end.
When practicality supersedes idealism, then you are not acting for the will of God, the good, but rather for your own will, the apparent good (hey, Aristotle!). God's will, simply put, cannot be achieved by man, and acting as though it can is a hideous example of pride. You cannot bring about peace and harmony, or even justice and right. That's not up to you; that's the attempted imposition of your own will on others, who can choose to act in accord with justice and righteousness or to act in the service of discord and injustice: hence that societal depravity which you do not seem to be properly acknowledging.
When idealism disregards practicality and prudence (which is exercising practical knowledge and judgment for the sake of the good), then that is an even greater example of pride. Where is this coming from? When did I say any of that? What is your point here? How would acting in accordance with charity (which is what I've said) and what I know to be the way most advantageous (for the end, which is the Good, God's will) imposing my will on someone? I'm not sure how I am not "propperly acknowledging" the depravity of society, and how does that change anything? Society is depraved. Very depraved. I know this very well, too well. How else am I going to acknowledge that than by acting in a way that isn't?
No amount of practicality is going to move the world to a better state; I can act as practical as possible and make absolutely no positive impact on those around me, because you know what? Isn't up to me, it's up to them. So I don't go out of my way to make a nuisance to people. I don't go around telling people what I think of them; I don't step on people's toes for the sake of it (which is what you implied by calling it a pettiness). But when they act in a way that is blatantly wrong, I have no problem getting right in their face - and sometimes that means close enough to step on their toes. When you post something on your blog that I think is wrong, I tell you so, because we're friends and honestly I thought you could handle it.
I don't have anything against practicality; I just have something against having your ideals subject to your practicality. I am all for acting practically second to acting idealistically.
Idealism without practical action is useless. Practical action without ideals is useless. You really can't have one without the other. That was the whole point of the blog post. Idealists tend to forget that practical actions are needed (or completely disagree that they are...) and cynics forget that the ideals can be strived for. How is stopping a circular argument not being able to handle it? We're saying the same things over and over. Do you not see that? No, I'm not giving up beause I don't think you're right. Circular arguments have no point. And in the words of the ever beloved Chesterton: "to me, all good things come to a point, swords for instance". You're not "listenting" to what I'm saying at all and I think you're wrong. No point in conitinuing. (Because, you know, no matter what I do, you can still choose to misinterpret me - which is obviously what you are doing as you told me that I was not saying what I am saying.)
Charity, caritas, agape, acting from and for the love of God leaves no room for error or deficiency, principle of non-contradiction, God cannot be where there is a privation, i.e., that which inheres a privation must be moved from without, per accidens, i.e., with violence (not necessarily what we call a violent act, but that which exercises its power upon something else). It's reason, logos, not an excuse, and nothing "excuses" bad behavior, or it wouldn't be bad.
Your last two comments were, frankly, pathetic. I like to argue, Catherine, but I don't argue for the sake of arguing. Your use of a catchphrase and evasion is very, very disappointing. If you want to talk about pettiness, which is a meanness, narrowness, and smallness, then you should probably look to those comments; I see no evidence of magnanimity or charity or even of reason of any kind. If you're going to insult me or the things I say, at least give me some reasons as to why they/I merit such. I'm idealistic, sure, and I'm blunt, but the two are not synonyms.
What if someone holds charity as an ideal...? Unremitting forgiveness is also an ideal.
Please tell me how I insulted you. When did you personally become the subject of this? I never said you were being petty and I didn't say you were blunt and I didn't use that as an example before you did. I know they aren't synomous and never said they were. Really, I don't get this paragraph at all. And how is it that you can tell me that what (you take it that) I'm saying displays a "sure sign of stupidity" (and is something that I absolutely abhor) and is an "admonishment of those who are not lukewarm" among other things, but I'm the one who lacks charity?
"And when it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow." ~Chesterton
Friday, February 22, 2008
Search
6 comments:
wow... you two fight a lot. and i'm not talking about just now; this seems to be a chronic problem.
it looks like you guys assume that you each mean one thing, which neither of you mean at all, and you both get unreasonably angry with one another over a simple misunderstanding. maybe you should start putting disclaimers on your statements or ask questions instead of arguing.
but then again, i'm on the out side of this and have seen this from one side only. and everything that i said was an opinion based on that outside view, and my suggestion was just that, a suggestion.
maybe i'm an idealist for hoping that you both will take it. or a cynic for believing that neither of you will.
If the end is the Good, if it’s God’s will, then what is wrong with acting practically? What other end would I be talking about? You seem to think that I by charity, I mean that no one feels bad or is unhappy or has no discomfort or ill-feelings toward each other or that there's no pain or something. That is definitely not what I mean. I don’t think an ideal world has much room for that kind of charity (if it can be even called charity). Yes, there are different forms of executing charity: I’ll bet that St. John Vianney didn’t hit every single drunkard without discretion. There are some people you have to be forceful with; there are some that it’s better to be gentle with. Like Hartmann said today, you may know the universal, but you need to act with practical knowledge in the particular because the universal may not be appropriate to the particular. Every action has a practical implication and in order to strive for an ideal world, those have to considered. You can’t strive an ideal without considering what is or what will be after another part of the equation is added (the action). In the case of the prisoners, if we know that negotiating with terrorist is not going to lead the right end (an end of hostilities, death, war, religious persecution), then it would not be practical to negotiate as it would lead to exactly the opposite of the end.
God's will cannot be attained by practical means; practical means are those within ordinary human reason, ordinary human activity. It can only take you so far; i.e., grace is necessary for the accomplishment of God's will, and grace is far outside the realm of practicality, for one cannot practically reason the course of grace-filled action. Practicality and practice, obviously, have the same root (derived from the Greek for to pass through); that which is practiced is that which is within one's control to practice, i.e., is that which one may possess of their own natural accord, as in from the powers of the agent. Summarily, practicality can only take you to the summit of natural human action - and in the Catholic understanding, that means natural fallen human action. As Dr. Bruce would say, language embalms metaphors in its etymologies.
As far as speaking against idealism, you made two complaints: one that it causes discord, and two that such discord is further from God's will; consequently I take that to mean that you are endorsing that which avoids making people uncomfortable. And certainly you do not have to treat everyone the same. That is why I greatly prefer to speak with people one on one rather than in groups, as my tendency is towards being very blunt which often offends people. But that's not quite what Hartmann said. The universal is always appropriate, but the manner by which the particular action adheres to the universal differs according to the situation. You may want to re-read what I said about acting practically under the auspice of idealism. I have nothing against practicality so long as you realize that it only takes you so far.
When idealism disregards practicality and prudence (which is exercising practical knowledge and judgment for the sake of the good), then that is an even greater example of pride. Where is this coming from? When did I say any of that?
By acting "ideally" they cause discord and ill-will which takes the world further from being an ideal world, not closer to it when, had they acted in what I'm going to call a practical manner- that is, in a way best suited to a particular situation- their actions would bring harmony and peace, or at least justice and right, which actually moves us closer to something resembling an ideal world.
The prudent man is the good man according to Aristotle, who advocated the cardinal virtues. So baptize the prudent man and give him the theological virtues, and suddenly mere prudence is not the highest good that a man can have, but rather charity, which is not practical - so long as you understand what practical truly means. But charity does not come from within the individual, but from God through the individual: "It was too easy to die for what was good or beautiful, for home or children or a civilization - it needed a God to die for the half-hearted and the corrupt."
As for the rest of that paragraph, you do not know what is "the most advantageous", because you cannot affect any such advantage - adherence to God's will - but in your own life. Thus you are imposing your will on others in trying to move them to such. Propose; but if you try to act in order to achieve the end of making others comply with God's will ("bring harmony and peace, or at least justice and right"), you might as well just tattoo "Torquemada" on your forearms; harmony, peace, justice, and right are all things outside of anyone's control. If you try to establish such on the level of practical action, then yes, you are failing to acknowledge the depravity of society because you are assuming that mere human actions can establish the good.
Idealism without practical action is useless. Practical action without ideals is useless.
I agree whole-heartedly with the second sentence, but I disagree entirely with the first. As evidence, name for me a single saint who had practicality without idealism, and in return I will name a dozen saints who had idealism without a shred of practicality. Show me the practicality of St. Simon the Stylite.
You are not saying what you think you're saying; and hopefully it is simply from a semantic misunderstanding; of course I highly doubt you would ever admit such, being that you are just as stubborn as - perhaps even more than - I am. If the argument is or was circular, it was as circular as a spiral, and frankly that is how most arguments of this nature go. I insisted that you are misrepresenting things, you insisted that you are not, and we each went about further refining our arguments as to why; or at the very least that was my intention; and that, frankly, is rather like making a sword, which is done by refolding the steel back over itself again and again until it is hardened and resilient.
Please tell me how I insulted you. When did you personally become the subject of this? I never said you were being petty and I didn't say you were blunt and I didn't use that as an example before you did. I know they aren't synomous and never said they were. Really, I don't get this paragraph at all. And how is it that you can tell me that what (you take it that) I'm saying displays a "sure sign of stupidity" (and is something that I absolutely abhor) and is an "admonishment of those who are not lukewarm" among other things, but I'm the one who lacks charity?
Something can be said without being said explicitly: everyone who knows me knows that I am blunt, and that I step, from time to time, on others' toes. And I personally became the subject of it when you sent me a personal email deriding one of my statements; no matter how you dress it up as thinking that it is "funny", when you do something like that it inexorably carries the tone of mockery and derision; why else would you do it?
I responded to your comments and your statements precisely as I saw them: stupid, that is, lacking of intelligence or reason, reason coming from the logos, the word, i.e., a lacking understanding of the words you were using.
I really do not think we have a great difference in what we are trying to accomplish. We both want the will of God. But I think we differ drastically on the methods, and I think your proposed method is one assured to not succeed, if taken at its literal level, that which the language you use implies. Since this is a reactionary response and not articulated from a single point on my end, but rather against a number of your points, it lacks a certain cohesion. I will try to put together a more structured argument for idealism, and why it must be placed always above practicality, on my own blog.
---
We're not angry, Amy; or at least, I'm not. Nothing wrong with fighting if you're trying to beat error to death so that truth might live.
I'm not angry today. I was the other day. But I am definitely not now. I may be in a few minutes. But not now. Expressive, but not angry. lol.
Brian, I honestly was not deriding you. I really did just find that particular line, taken out of context funny (and only taken out of context) (which did you ever get the other email, because I elaborated on that?). Here's what I wrote:
"a)- No, I honestly just found it amusing that you, who are always telling me that the world is not as depraved as I think it is, are now telling me that I don't think it's depraved enough. (and take the orgeishness and apply it to almost every human being in the world and it's pretty depraved). I don't think it's wrong of me to find that amusing. And you know me well enough to know that I find odd things amusing; things which maybe aren't amusing to others, but that somehow strike me as interesting in a humourous sort of fashion. Really, if you take just that one sentence and apply it to me coming from you, it IS kind of amusing. That's all. And I really don't have any other way of talking to you except to call you and I don't think that warranted a phone call. Especially not during the day when it isn't free..."
No derision intended. I'm sorry you thought it was. I really didn't intend to start anything. You are always lifting me out of my "the world sucks and we're all going to Hell" phases. Come on, it IS kind of funny, yeah? I honestly thought you'd see why I was laughing. (Of course, if you didn't get the email...) If I tell you I think something is funny, I mean that I think it is funny. I'm not going to lie to you and pretend it's funny if I intend to deride you. You should know that. What did I do that made you think I would? :( If I meant to deride you, I never would have signed it it lol and it would have been more than one line.
I'll respond to the rest later. My computer's dying.
By acting "ideally" they cause discord and ill-will which takes the world further from being an ideal world, not closer to it when, had they acted in what I'm going to call a practical manner- that is, in a way best suited to a particular situation- their actions would bring harmony and peace, or at least justice and right, which actually moves us closer to something resembling an ideal world.
Ok, yeah, that would be my fault, why weren't you clear that this was a particular thing you had a problem with? I didn't realize (despite reading it several times; I guess it was clear to me) that I implied that every act that an idealist makes causes discord and ill-will. I mean that the ones that are acted more from what should be than what is can. I have said several times, though, that idealism isn't necessarily the way NOT to act. Sometimes, it's perfectly fine.
That's really the only thing that I think is completely my fault. (Why I'm posting it first.)
God's will cannot be attained by practical means; practical means are those within ordinary human reason, ordinary human activity. It can only take you so far; i.e., grace is necessary for the accomplishment of God's will, and grace is far outside the realm of practicality, for one cannot practically reason the course of grace-filled action. Practicality and practice, obviously, have the same root (derived from the Greek for to pass through); that which is practiced is that which is within one's control to practice, i.e., is that which one may possess of their own natural accord, as in from the powers of the agent. Summarily, practicality can only take you to the summit of natural human action - and in the Catholic understanding, that means natural fallen human action. As Dr. Bruce would say, language embalms metaphors in its etymologies.
I don't think practicality automatically excludes the fact of grace. If we are talking about achieving God's will then grace would be understood, at least, I would think it would have to be. How could we be practical without grace? Even before Christ's death there was a type of grace, though not redemptive; a grace that enabled humans to be disposed to be saved, to live according to those cardinal virtues. We only have the ability to be practical because God gives us the grace to be.
The universal is always appropriate, but the manner by which the particular action adheres to the universal differs according to the situation.
Ok, but how is that much different from what I've been saying? Hence, "Idealism without practicality is useless" I don't mean that you should give up your ideals or compromise them, I don't think I implied that; but you should fit them to the certain situation. " I think sometimes that the idealists get so lost in the ideals that they really cannot see how ideals improperly applied are actually (and sometimes extremely) detrimental." That's my point there. That's where the practicality comes in. If you have ideals, you have to apply them, you have to exercise some sort of practicality.
As for the rest of that paragraph, you do not know what is "the most advantageous", because you cannot affect any such advantage - adherence to God's will - but in your own life. Thus you are imposing your will on others in trying to move them to such. Propose; but if you try to act in order to achieve the end of making others comply with God's will ("bring harmony and peace, or at least justice and right"), you might as well just tattoo "Torquemada" on your forearms; harmony, peace, justice, and right are all things outside of anyone's control. If you try to establish such on the level of practical action, then yes, you are failing to acknowledge the depravity of society because you are assuming that mere human actions can establish the good.
You can practice peace, justice, and right and hence, bring those. And if you practice those, which are the most advantageous for bringing the end of God’s will, yes?, then are you really imposing your will? Following this logic, it would seem that St. John Vianney was imposing his will on others. When did I become an Inquistitor? What am I missing?
I agree whole-heartedly with the second sentence, but I disagree entirely with the first. As evidence, name for me a single saint who had practicality without idealism, and in return I will name a dozen saints who had idealism without a shred of practicality. Show me the practicality of St. Simon the Stylite.
Simon the Stylite. What a wonderful guy. Lol. On first glance, yeah, living on a pillar isn’t practical at all. But, what was he trying to do? He was trying to give up worldly desires and pleasures. At first, he chained himself to a boulder in the middle of a field to pray. That seems impractical, too, but his goal was to give up worldly pleasures and restrain himself. Eventually he was encouraged to pray without the chains. People started to seek him out and to him this was a near occasion of sin, so he climbed the pillar (which Amy has a question for you about the logisitics of… living up there with no plumbing – eh, it’s 2:04 am and we’re at WH). Lol. For most people, living atop a pillar is probably not ideal or practical. But for him, it was both. Stabbing your eyes out if they cause you to sin doesn’t seem practical either, but if they cause you to sin, you should. (Maybe not literally). And living on the pilar got him what he was trying to get: sanctity.
You are not saying what you think you're saying; and hopefully it is simply from a semantic misunderstanding; of course I highly doubt you would ever admit such, being that you are just as stubborn as - perhaps even more than - I am. If the argument is or was circular, it was as circular as a spiral, and frankly that is how most arguments of this nature go. I insisted that you are misrepresenting things, you insisted that you are not, and we each went about further refining our arguments as to why; or at the very least that was my intention; and that, frankly, is rather like making a sword, which is done by refolding the steel back over itself again and again until it is hardened and resilient.
Lol. I’ve been telling you that I am more stubborn than you think I am the entire time I’ve known you. It does seem that you put a different meaning on the word practical than I. I am not wrong, though; if you look it up in the dictionary, there are about 9 definitions. Yes, language embalms metaphors in its etymology. But it embalms many metaphors. I don’t think I’ve been unclear in my use of the word practical. Honestly, I think the email was the first spiral. The rest was circles. Even if we were refining our arguments, the other was not getting it. At least, it didn’t seem like it to me. Really I’m not sure we’ve started to spiral yet.
Something can be said without being said explicitly: everyone who knows me knows that I am blunt, and that I step, from time to time, on others' toes. And I personally became the subject of it when you sent me a personal email deriding one of my statements; no matter how you dress it up as thinking that it is "funny", when you do something like that it inexorably carries the tone of mockery and derision; why else would you do it?
I responded to your comments and your statements precisely as I saw them: stupid, that is, lacking of intelligence or reason, reason coming from the logos, the word, i.e., a lacking understanding of the words you were using.
I really do not think we have a great difference in what we are trying to accomplish. We both want the will of God. But I think we differ drastically on the methods, and I think your proposed method is one assured to not succeed, if taken at its literal level, that which the language you use implies. Since this is a reactionary response and not articulated from a single point on my end, but rather against a number of your points, it lacks a certain cohesion. I will try to put together a more structured argument for idealism, and why it must be placed always above practicality, on my own blog.
Just because something can be implied doesn’t mean it is. You aren’t the only idealist I know. You aren’t the only blunt person I know. You aren’t the only person I know who steps on people’s toes. Some of that stuff may have applied to you, but really, I wasn’t being specific. The 1st comment, I hope, clears the other up. Really, I if I was deriding you, I wouldn’t have laughed. You gave up IM for Lent; that was one of those random things I would have randomly IMed you about. Sorry that you thought it was meant to be mean. Especially after I told you it wasn't.
Taken at one of the literal levels, you mean. (The one that you chose to take.) Like I said, there is more than one definition; I think I was pretty clear about which one I was using.
I thought about trying to word this more nicely, but then I thought about Mt 23:14-38...Call things what they are. Or... 'tell it like it is.' as we say these days...
Just kidding. :)
After reading the very, very, very long dialogue between the two of you, I have come to the conclusion that Senator Kemple is not at all an idealist... at least not an idealist in the way that I am.
I call myself an idealist because I have a sincere hope that racism will cease to exist. I call myself an idealist because I hope that someday there is no need for wars. I call myself an idealist because I imagine a US government with bipartisanship.
I'm also a pretty agreeable person. I don't like conflict, and though I would really like to avoid it, I won't let the fact that it makes me uncomfortable prevent me from telling the truth.
If you asked 50 people that knew me, a mix of friends and people that just knew me from work or having a class together, none of them--not one--would say that I step on people's toes or that I am ever rude to people. Sarcastic at times? Yes. But ALWAYS in a playful manner.
I never, ever find it necessary to be rude, short, overly loud... anything like that... to make a point. I'm the kind of idealist that is bursting at the seams to tell you my hope for the world and my face glows when I do...
Of course I encounter those who say I'm unrealistic. I disagree. I'm very realistic and this is what helps me to NOT get angry with people who have given up on the world, who mark things off as "that's just life, get over it."... because I know that they don't have the capacity to understand my outlook at the time. Maybe they are hurting or maybe they just have some kind of prejudice that prevents them from loving fully. Whatever the case may be, I choose to be a witness to perfect charity not by talking someone's ear off, but by being a living testimony, in as much as I can, to God's love for me... by loving others.
This DOES NOT MEAN I let people walk all over me. It doesn't. People who are jerks to me are choosing to not be a part of my life, in the same way that people who reject God are choosing not to have God and His blessings be a part of theirs in the world to come.
Holy moly, this was never supposed to be a long comment.
All I really meant to post, Mr. Kemple, is that I really don't see how you're an idealist at all... I interpret what Catherine is saying to mean that we can't just have our head in the clouds holding up peace signs thinking that if we smile and get along with everyone, that everything will be okay. But there is most definitely a way to love people, and love them completely... but to do that we have to know these people as individuals. God's love is perfect because he knows each one of us so well and knows how to speak to our hearts. He doesn't do the one-size-fits all thing and neither should we. Some people might need a good kick in the pants but that should certainly not be our default setting and I honestly believe that there is no way for us to know for sure that being gruff with someone is going to get through to them. It might even push them further away...
Okay it's 3 am and I'm rambling and I'm not sure this is coherent.
What I meant to say originally was, I am an idealist, and I am so totally not like Mr. Kemple. Mr. Kemple's posts have shown a lot of what idealists should NOT be.
Anyway...
love you catherine.
I never saw anonymous' post... so this is quite a necro, as we internet nerds call it.
First of all, I can see how I would be taken to be anything but an idealist. I used to have, as the personal tagline on my blog, "On the surface: cynical. Under the surface: idealistic."
But there is a certain impression in the modern world as to what it means to be idealistic. That impression is usually of the bleeding-heart liberal who wants peace and love and happiness for everyone, a veritable utopian. Undoubtedly there are accepted minor deviations from this norm, but the gist of it must be there for most to recognize it as idealism. Most certainly that is not me.
So how am I an idealist? In that I see the capability not only of every person, but of societies and countries as a whole, to excel and be what God made them to be. I think no one ought to sacrifice his dignity, not that which he accords himself but that which has been accorded him by God, for the sake of profit. I believe that capitalism ought to be done away with for the pursuit of a better system, a system more concerned with the good of people.
Believe it or not, racists are idealists too. They have a very screwed up ideal, which is impractical and stupid and wrong, but they believe in it wholeheartedly. The opposite of an idealist is not a racist, or a bigot, or a warmonger; the opposite of an idealist is the apathetic, the lukewarm. If you like to quote Scripture, how about Apocalypse 3:16? "But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."
Am I oftentimes harsh in my idealism, in my desperate desire for man to be as God wants him to be? Sure. But "[t]hose whom I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous, therefore, and do penance."
*Shrug* I think we can live in a much better world. I think we can be much better people. But the effects of original sin, the apathy I've seen my whole life, the avoidance of suffering and sacrifice, have led me to believe that you can't get through to most people with butterflies and kittens.
Post a Comment