A ‘Civil’ War

My fellow Americans, we are at war.

No, I’m not talking about the ‘War on Drugs’ or the ‘War on Terrorism.’ I’m not talking about another ‘Cold War’ or a war using all the latest technological horrors our ingenuity can devise. What I’m talking about is something far more insidious that is potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East. I’m talking about a war on Civility.

As the Baby Boom Generation's Beat Culture slid into the Hippie Culture and the Age of Aquarius, America’s youth began to openly shrug off the cultural trappings of their parents and grandparents. They dismissed the formalities of interaction used by the previous generations as “hollow”, “meaningless”, and even “dishonest”. They believed that ‘finishing school’ etiquette helped prop up a class system that was designed to make the rich richer and keep the poor under heel. Therefore, they embraced a rebellious culture of brutally frank honesty with no regard for the effects of their words.

To this day, many of the self-proclaimed ‘intelligentsia’ wrap themselves in a cloak made from the words of the First Amendment and practice this crassly insensitive form of communication. In daily conversation, they use language so scurrilous it would blister the ears of a merchant marine, no matter the setting or the age of casual bystanders. In many businesses, not only is it acceptable to use language that would have gotten you fired as recently as the 1980s, but often individuals who try to maintain a polite and respectful vocabulary are either viewed as ‘soft’, or are assumed to be mocking the listener. Often, if someone tries to express discomfort with the abusive language used by someone around them, the person using the vulgarities starts screaming “censorship” and that the person complaining is trying to deprive them of their Right to Free Speech.

It gets even worse if a discussion or debate is underway. When the members of this literati caste find themselves hearing views opposing their own, they often launch immediately into a verbal personal attack on that speaker, especially when said speaker has disproved the literati's position. In most cases, they will either attack with outrageous accusations and offensive name-calling, or they simply spew forth a stream of invectives as loud as they can in an attempt to ‘shout down’ the opposition. Often, they use both tactics together. In any case, at no time do these ‘enlightened’ members of the ‘tolerant’ ranks afford the speaker with the courtesy of allowing her or him to present their case, then rebutting it logically with facts and observations.

When their beliefs are questioned, the intelligentsia usually follows up by 'gaslighting' the speaker, loudly and publicly accusing them of doing what they themselves were doing all along. They play an intellectually dishonest game of political brinkmanship in an attempt to gain as much sympathy from the general public as they can, while demonizing the person who had the audacity to disagree with them.

When these bastions of the social conscience try to hide behind their Unalienable Right to Free Speech, they fail to acknowledge the flip side of that coin. For every Right granted by the Creator and enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, there are implied Responsibilities and Consequences. The most commonly used example of a limitation to the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment is that one can’t stand up in a crowded theater and shout, “Fire!” if there is no fire. That isn’t exactly true. We actually do have the Right to do so, but we also have the Responsibility to consider the Consequences of our actions and not casually do something that may cause injury to others. If we choose to ignore that responsibility, then we must accept the consequences of our actions, which in this case could mean a fine, jail time, or even civil penalties sought by those injured by the irresponsible act. Basically, it comes down to an old adage I like to use: “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.”

When the late George Carlin came out with his routine, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” he created an iconic comedy performance…as well as the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that established that the FCC did have the authority to prohibit the broadcast of ‘indecent’ material over the public airwaves during the hours when children were likely to be in the audience. However, his views of profanity totally dismissed the value of what I like to call, “Civilization Lubrication.” As Robert Heinlein once wrote,

“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as ‘empty,’ ‘meaningless,’ or ‘dishonest,’ and scorn the use of them. No matter how ‘pure’ their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.” (1)

Of course, considering that Carlin also once stated in one of his routines,

“I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse.” (2)

it’s very possible he was intentionally ‘throwing sand into the machinery.’ This has been going on for several decades, but there are two very good examples of this rampant incivility that occurred in 2009.

The first example happened on Wednesday, 20 May 2009. Political pundit and commentator Glenn Beck was invited to appear on a segment of the daytime television chat show, The View. On his radio program on Tuesday, Mr. Beck related a personal anecdote of a chance encounter with two of The View’s stars that happened on an Amtrak train about two weeks earlier under unusual circumstances. When Mr. Beck appeared on the show, he was suffering from a stomach flu and was trying to remain polite and respectful since he was in, as he put it, ‘their house.’ As soon as the segment began, the two individuals he encountered on the train attacked him…obsessing for over seven minutes about who addressed who first on the train. They demanded explanations and apologies for some imagined sleight, then refused to let him reply. They both called him a ‘liar’ multiple times with one of them going so far as to refer to him as, “…a lying sack of dog mess.” The other went so far as to upbraid him for failing to check his facts before reporting a story, even though he had simply been relating a personal anecdote as he remembered it and not reporting a news story, and he has stated numerous times over the years that he is a commentator, not a reporter. All through this baseless attack, Mr. Beck reacted with civility and dignity, refusing to lower himself to the level of his attackers.

The second example happened on Thursday, 21 May 2009. President Barack Obama delivered an address at the National Archives defending his recent decisions on national security. The speaker who immediately followed The President was former Vice-President Dick Cheney who delivered an address that supported the national security policies implemented by the Bush Administration, and criticizing the Obama Administration's reduction of the security measures implemented by his predecessor. Unfortunately, instead of using this as a wonderful opportunity to open up a discussion on the merits of both speeches, a user of the online social network, Facebook, decided to create a page in support of, “Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up.” In other words, those Oh So Tolerant individuals who scream ‘censorship’ every time someone asks them to stop using profanity around children have decided that the former Vice-President of the United States no longer has a Right to Free Speech just because he disagrees with the current President.

In fact, my previous post in this blog contains another perfect example of this behavior. In it, I shared an article by respected historian, Victor Davis Hanson, that illustrates just how the the Progressive apologists for the terrorist organization, Hamas, are using these tactics to blame Israel for the atrocities Hamas perpetrated upon them and to convince the public that Israel is the villain, not Hamas. They are going out of their way to project Hamas' inhuman behavior onto Israel and accuse them of doing to Arabs and Muslims what Hamas has in fact been doing to Jews since their inception. Simply stated, the truth doesn't support their political narrative so they have to destroy it.

So, what makes this incivility “potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East” you ask? It’s this: the incivility into which American culture has been plunged is a wedge that has divided the country into ‘Us’ and ‘Them,’ ‘Left’ and ‘Right,’ ‘Red States’ and ‘Blue States,’ ‘Originalists’ and ‘Progressives.’ As long as feelings and opinions are regarded as legitimate rebuttle to hard facts and figures; as long as any voices are silenced and prevented from presenting their arguments reasonably, logically, and courteously; we will never be able to span the chasm between us and reunite as One Nation. If we do not heal this divide, the United States will be finished. As the old adage says, "United we stand, Divided we fall."

It is time to heal this country, not separate it further. Put down the donkey and elephant banners; put away your copy of, “Snappy Comebacks to Stupid Questions”; take a deep breath and let the person across from you finish his or her thought before you reply…and occasionally pause to let that other person either ask questions or rebut your points. The important thing is to stop the shouting and name-calling and begin to dialogue with one another. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, just keep in mind that the person on the other side of the argument also has the right to be passionate about their beliefs. Remember that there is a difference between being passionate and being emotional, so leave emotions out of the discussion. Also remember that one can be passionate and still present a logical argument supported by facts. And finally, before you come to the table, triple check your facts to make certain you are not basing your arguments on hearsay, innuendo, opinion, or urban myth. I’m always open to other points of view, but you’d better be able to support your position with cold, hard facts or I reserve the right to point out your errors!

Now, go out there and discuss, debate, and decide. Keep an open mind and end the War on Civility. Just stop all the bickering, gaslighting, name-calling, and shouting!

Until next time, be well, Dear Ones!

(1) Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein © 1973 Robert A. Heinlein

(2) Life Is Worth Losing by George Carlin © 2005 George Carlin

© 2009, 2023 James P. Rice

Simply Me (Continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham: Judaism (continued)

Welcome back! Let's get back to Jacob, the third of the Three Patriarchs in Judaism.

Jacob dwelt in Harran for 20 years: Laban had tricked Jacob into working for him for 14 years for the hand of his youngest daughter, then Jacob worked for another 6 years to build up his flocks. Finally, God told Jacob that it was time to return to the land of his father. Taking his wives, children, servants, and flocks, Jacob left without warning, prompting Laban to pursue him. On his way to the land of Seir in Canaan, where Esau dwelt, Jacob got into a wrestling match with a mysterious being at the ford of the Jabbok. They wrestled all night and, at dawn, when he couldn’t defeat Jacob, the being touched Jacob on the sinew of the thigh, leaving Jacob with a limp. Realizing that the being was some sort of divinity (an angel of God, or maybe even God Himself), Jacob agreed to release him only if he blessed Jacob. The being replied, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” (Genesis 32:28)

During his sojourn in Harran, Israel acquired four wives and twelve children; eleven sons and one daughter. His wives were: Rachel (the woman for whom he worked 14 years); Leah (Rachael’s older sister); Bilha (Rachel’s servant); and Zilpah (Leah’s servant). Jacob ‘s children were: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah, and Joseph. (Genesis 29:31 - 30:24) It is possible that Israel had mor daughters, but Dinah is the only one mentioned in Genesis. Once they returned to Canaan, Rachel became pregnant again. As Israel was moving all of his people and flocks to Ephrath (modern day Bethlehem), Rachel went into labor and died as she gave birth to Israel’s twelfth son, Benjamin. (Genesis 35:16-20) To this day, Rachel’s Tomb outside of Bethlehem is a popular site for pilgrimages and prayers.

Israel continued his journey, eventually reuniting with his father, Isaac, at Elonei Mamre, an important market fair north of Hebron in Judea. Isaac lived to 180. When he died, Israel and Esau buried him in the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron, alongside Abraham. Talmudic researchers believe that, at this meeting, Esau gave the genealogical records of his House to Israel, who incorporated them into his own family records. Moses would eventually augment and publish Esau’s records, and they would become Chapter 36 of the Book of Genesis.

Of all his sons, Israel’s favorite was Rachel’s firstborn, Joseph. Because of their father’s favoritism, Joseph’s half-brothers were jealous of him and often taunted him. When he was 17, Israel gave Joseph an ornate robe or coat as a reward for relating the misdeeds of his brothers to his father. Upon seeing this, the jealousy felt by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah turned to hate. When Joseph began to have dreams that seemed to indicate that his brothers would all bow before him, they began to conspire against him. When Israel heard of the dreams, he chastised Joseph saying, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” However, Israel continued to consider Joseph’s dreams. (Genesis 37:1-11)

Sometime later, all of Joseph’s brothers, except Benjamin, were tending Israel’s flocks near Shenchem, and Israel decided to send Joseph down to check their progress and report back. When Joseph arrived, he discovered that they had moved the flocks several miles away to Dothan, so he followed them. As Joseph approached, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah saw him and decided to kill him. Reuben, Israel’s firstborn by Leah, heard this and tried to rescue Joseph saying, “Let us not take his life!” He went on to suggest that they throw him into a nearby dry cistern with the thought of later returning Joseph to their father. When Joseph arrived, his brothers grabbed him, stripped off his ornate robe, and threw him into the cistern. As they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived from Gilead on their way to Egypt. Judah had the idea to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, so they did and received twenty shekels of silver. When the caravan arrived in Egypt, Joseph was sold to the Captain of the Pharaoh’s Guard.

When Reuben returned and discovered that Joseph was gone, he became distraught. They all then decided to slaughter a goat and cover Joseph’s robe with the goat’s blood. Returning to Hebron, they brought the bloody robe to Israel and told him that Joseph had been devoured be some ferocious beast. Israel became extremely upset and mourned Joseph for many days, refusing to be comforted. (Genesis 37:12-36)

That's all for now. Nexgt time, we'll finish up with Jacob/Israel and discuss the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Until then, be well!

Simply Me (Continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham: Judaism

In Judaism, Abraham is known as ,Avraham Avinu, which means, “our Father Abraham.” This honorific signifies that he is both, the biological progenitor of the Jews, and the Father of modern Judaism. In other words, Abraham was the first Jew. His story is traditionally read during the five weekly Torah readings.

According to Jewish traditions, God created heaven and earth for the sake of the piety of Abraham. After the Great Flood, he was the only one among the pious to solemnly swear to never forsake the Lord. Abraham studied the Ways of God in the house of Noah and Shem, continuing the line of High Priest from them. This position he passed down to his great-grandson, Levi, and his descendants in perpetuity. Also in this tradition, Abraham is one of the Three Patriarchs, along with his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob (who would later be renamed, Israel). The Jewish faith remembers these three by referring to God as, “Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchaq, ve Elohei Ya’aqov,” or, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” and never the God of any other prophets or luminaries in Judaism.

When Isaac was 60 years old and had been married to Rebekah for 20 years, Jacob and his twin brother, Esau were born. During the pregnancy, Rebekah was uncomfortable and went before God to ask why she was suffering. It was then she was given the prophecy that twins were fighting in her womb and that they would continue to be at odds with each other their entire lives, even after they became two separate nations. The prophecy also said, “one people will be stronger than the other, and the elder will end up serving the younger.” According to Jewish tradition, Esau was born first, covered with red hair as if he were wearing a hairy garment. Jacob came out immediately after, grasping Esau’s heel. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew name, Ya’aqov, means, “heel-catcher” or “supplanter.”

As they matured, the boys exhibited very different personalities. Esau became a skilled hunter and a man of the outdoors, while Jacob was content to remain at home among the tents. Their parents loved both of their children, but Isaac favored Esau, while Rebekah favored Jacob. When they were older, Jacob was preparing some stew when Esau came in and declared that he was famished. He asked for some of the ‘red stew’ from Jacob, who said that he would give Esau some, provided Esau sold Jacob his birthright as firstborn. Esau said, “Look, I am about to die. What good is the birthright to me?” He then swore to Jacob, selling his birthright for the price of a bowl of stew.

Years later, Isaac’s vision was failing him as he got older. He called for Esau, telling him to gather his bow and quiver and go get some wild game for him. He told Esau to, “prepare me the kind of tasty meal I like and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my blessing before I die.” Rebekah heard this and, remembering the prophecy that her older son would serve her younger, realized that this must mean Jacob would receive Isaac’s blessing. So, after Esau left for the hunt, she went to Jacob and told him what she’d heard. She told Jacob to gather two goats from the flock so that she could prepare a meal for Isaac, then he would serve it to his father and receive the blessing for himself. In spite of his fears that Isaac would recognize the deception because Esau was much hairier than he was, he did as his mother instructed. When the savory meat was ready, Rebekah dressed Jacob in Esau’s garments and laid garments across his arms and neck to simulate Esau’s hairy skin. Isaac was suspicious because of Jacob’s voice, but the disguise ultimately worked and Isaac blessed Jacob, saying, “May God give you Heaven’s dew and Earth’s richness-an abundance of grain and new wine. May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and may those who bless you be blessed.” Esau was furious because Jacob had first taken his birthright, and then his blessing, so he decided that, upon his father’s death, he would kill his brother. When she heard about what Esau said, Rebekah sent Jacob to live with her brother, Laban the Aramean, in Harran until enough time had passed for Esau to forget what Jacob had done. (Genesis Chapter 27)

Next time, we'll continue our look at Judaism with more on Jacob. Until then, be well!

Simply Me (continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham

YHWH…Yahweh…Jehovah…Allah…or simply, God.  If you are a religious person who practices monotheism (the worship of a single Deity), and you address your particular Creator by one or more of these names, then, no matter which you use, you are in all probability a member of one of three specific faiths: Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.  The first two are the first and second largest religions in the world, while the third is the twelfth largest.  Judaism is the oldest of the three, while Islam is the youngest.  They each agree with one or both of the others on various points, and disagree on even more; but there is one point on which they all three agree: they were the same religion up until the life of a Hebrew man who was named Abram upon his birth, but who, in his later years, was given the name, “Abraham,” by the Deity he worshipped.

So, just who was this Abram/Abraham?  Well, all we know of him is what was passed down through Hebrew oral tradition, and later documented in the Book of Genesis…also known as the First Book of: the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament, and the Books of Moses.  In it, we are told that Abraham:

• was a direct descendant of Noah through Noah’s son, Shem;
• was born approximately 292 years after the Great Flood;
• was a pious, devout man who always answered the call of the Lord;
• was married to his half-sister, Sarai (whom God would later rename, “Sarah”);
• became exceedingly wealthy due to a ‘misunderstanding’ with Egypt’s Pharaoh about whether Sarai was his sister or his wife;
• was the uncle of Lot;
• saved Lot’s life twice: once by rescuing him from a hostile force that had taken him hostage; and once by bargaining with God to spare the lives of any righteous people who may have been living in Sodom and Gomorrah when God had decided to destroy those two cities;
• received four promises from God:

1. that God would make Abram “…into a great nation;”
2. that God would give all the land of Canaan to all of Abram’s offspring (descendants);
3. that, even though Abram and Sarai were old and childless, God would make Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky or as the grains of sand on the seashore;
4. and that Ishmael, Abraham’s son with one of Sarah’s slaves, would not be forgotten; that he would be a great nation in his own right and would be the father of twelve rulers;

• fathered his first son, Ishmael, with Sarah’s slave, Hagar, at Sarah’s encouragement;
• fathered his heir, Isaac, with Sarah 14 years after the birth of Ishmael;
• had his faith tested by God, who commanded Abraham to offer his young son, Isaac, as a burnt sacrifice.  God stopped the sacrifice before the boy could be harmed.

In Jewish and Christian tradition, Abraham was the first of the three Patriarchs of the Israelites, with his son, Isaac, and his grandson, Jacob, being the second and third.  Jacob, whose name would be changed by God to, “Israel,” was the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and whose direct descendants would include Moses, through his son, Levi, and the Israelite Kings David and Solomon, through his son, Judah.  Christian tradition holds that Jesus is also a direct descendant of Jacob/Israel through King David.

This is where the schism occurs between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.  While Islamic tradition holds that all of the above were Prophets of Allah (God); that Abraham, Isaac, and Israel were Patriarchs of the Israelites; this tradition maintains that Abraham’s oldest son, Ishmael, was also one of the Patriarchs of the Israelites, and was in fact Abraham’s favorite son and true heir.  Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, claimed to be a direct descendant of Ishmael.  I’ll go into Islam in more detail in a later post.  Next time, I’m going to focus on the descendants of Isaac: Judaism and Christianity.

Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016

Simply Me (continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2

“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” – Robert A. Heinlein

belief [bih-leef]   Noun:               1.  an opinion or conviction;
                                                             2.  confidence in the truth or existence of something 
                                                                   not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof;

                                                             3.  confidence; faith; trust;

                                                             4.  a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith;

faith [feyth]   Noun:                      1.  confidence or trust in a person or thing;

                                                             2.  belief that is not based on proof;

                                                             3.  belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of 

                                                                  religion;

                                                             4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of 

                                                                  merit, etc.;

religion [ri-lij-uh n]   Noun:      1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and 
                                                                  purpose of the universe, especially when 
                                                                  considered as the creation of a superhuman 
                                                                  agency or agencies, usually involving devotional 
                                                                  and ritual observances, and often containing a 
                                                                  moral code governing the conduct of human 
                                                                  affairs;

                                                             2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices 

                                                                   generally agreed upon by a number of persons or 

                                                                   sects;

                                                             3.    the body of persons adhering to a particular set of 

                                                                   beliefs and practices; 

spirituality [spir-i-choo-al-i-tee]  Noun:  

                                                              1.  the quality or fact of relating to, or consisting of 

                                                                   spirit; incorporeal;

                                                              2.  incorporeal or immaterial nature;

                                                              3.  predominantly spiritual character as shown in 

                                                                    thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone;

theology [thee-ol-uh-jee]   Noun:  

                                                              1.  The field of study and analysis concerned with 
                                                                   God and God’s attributes and relations to the 
                                                                   Universe; the study of divine things or religious 
                                                                   truth; divinity;

When most erudite citizens of a cosmopolitan society of the twenty-first century think of “Religion,” they, are usually considering five inter-woven concepts under that one capital “R”: belief, faith, religion, spirituality, and theology. 

Looking at the dictionary definitions at the beginning of this post, you can see that, while ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ are synonyms, they aren’t exactly the same.  It is possible for one to have belief without faith, but not faith without belief.  In other words, you can have a belief in something whether or not you’ve seen evidence of its veracity; while ‘faith’ is believing in something without any sort of evidence, just because something inside you says, “This I Believe.” 

‘Spirituality,’ on the other hand, can be addressed by either faith or belief, as it is concerned with the concept of the immaterial Spirit or Soul.  It has even been applied to situations where there is an absence of belief or faith, i.e. when atheists use either “The Spirit of Man” or “The Human Spirit” to define one or more of the intangibles of the Human mind, such as: the drive to overcome and survive insurmountable odds, the ability to use intuitive reasoning to come to an accurate conclusion from what appears to be insufficient data, and the ability of the subconscious to complete a puzzle from a few disparate pieces.  Then there is the spirituality aspect of ‘religion,’ with a little “r.”

Small “r” religion is the application and practice of the various systems of belief and faith, once they’ve been codified, chronicled, and consecrated.  It is the collected trappings in which we enshroud our intangible beliefs; the “garment of faith,’ as it was defined by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  It can include something as large, old, and ritualized as the worship services of the Roman Catholic Church, or something as small, recent, and casual as the tradition a collegiate athletic team has of touching a specific item for luck before a game.  But, no matter the age, complexity, or size, many, if not all, religions have some sort of spiritual aspect or consideration, be it the one shot at Salvation of an Immortal Soul, the continued Reincarnation of a Soul in the Search for Enlightenment, or the temporary inhabitation of a ‘meat puppet’ by some Great Celestial Being.  There are, however, four hallmarks shared by all religions: that only certain beliefs and practices are sanctioned; that engaging in anything taboo results in the transgressor being chastened, often severely; that some, if not all, sanctioned practices are ceremonially engaged in at very specific places and times; and that all beliefs and practices, both prescribed and proscribed, are passed down to successive generations in such a way as to enshrine said beliefs and practices as necessary cultural habits, and ensure their accurate and faithful preservation and adherence. 

Finally, theology is a sub-category of Philosophy that is part Ethics and part Metaphysics.  It’s the study of the divinity and truth of religion in general, or of a specific religion.  As such, it can cover the belief and faith of the adherents of religion, any divinely required moral codes and their relationship to the spirit, how the tenets of religion correlate with Truth, how divinity figures into the creation and management of the Universe, and the nature and scope of divine revelation in a faith-based belief system.  As you can see, theology touches on all aspects of capital “R” Religion.

So, I imagine that, by now, if your eyes aren’t starting to glaze over, you’re asking yourself, “Where’s the conflict?  Where’s the heresy?  Where does he start a Jihad?”  Well, reach not for the new Bourne story (Spoiler Alert: David comes out of hiding and is forced to do violence on shadowy types in order to save someone close to him; the movie version will contain lots of car chases and shaky cameras.) nor grab the newest George R. R. Martin novel (Spoiler Alert: he kills off half of the main characters about three fifths of the way through the book.), because here’s where the discussion gets interesting.

Next time, we look at the God of Abraham.  Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016

Simply Me (continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

"Philosophy is a walk on slippery rocks..." - Edie Brickell

      Hello again, friends and family!  As I mentioned last time, the topic of 'Philosophy' is much, much more than an individual’s Core Personal Philosophy.  In fact, it is such a voluminous subject that pretty much everything I plan to discuss about "Simply Me" fits into one of the three traditional branches of Philosophy: Natural Philosophy; Moral Philosophy; or Metaphysical Philosophy (or simply Metaphysics).

Natural Philosophy, or Natural Science, as it’s known these days, is the aggregate of the various sciences that deal with all the objects and processes in the Universe that can be observed, described, predicted, empirically tested, and understood.  The hallmark of these various fields of Natural Science is that accuracy, quality, and validity of the empirical evidence is confirmed by the repeatability of the findings.  This branch of Philosophy is further divided into two principle branches: life sciences and physical sciences; with life sciences comprising the fields that involve the study of living organisms (such as anatomy, botany, genetics, molecular biology, and zoology), and physical sciences comprising the fields that study non-living systems (such as astronomy, chemistry, earth sciences, and physics).  Human history is replete with men and women who applied their Human Reasoning to ascertain bits and pieces of the fundamentals of nature; intellectual heroes such as Leucippus, Pythagoras, Euclid, Aristotle, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Hypatia of Alexandria, Claudius Ptolemy, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Harun al-Rashid, Abu Nasr Mansur, Hildegard of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas, Galileo Galilei, Maria Winkelmann, Tyco Brahe, Maria Sybilla Merian, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Joseph Priestley, Thomas Jefferson, Antoine Lavoisier, Caroline Herschel, Marie Sklodowska-Curie, Maria Mitchell, Arthur Rudolph, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, Inge Lehmann, Emmy Noether, Wernher von Braun, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Chien-Shiung Wu, Arthur C. Clarke, Tikvah Alper, Isaac Asimov, Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, Virginia Gerstenfeld Heinlein, Jane Goodall, Steve Wozniak, Robert Metcalf, and Robert Jarvik.  This may seem like a series of ‘begats’ out of the Old Testament, but each of these individuals, and many more like them, should be mentioned, and often, for the contributions they each made to promote the advancement of Human Knowledge; oft times at the expense of their own lives as they shook up the hide-bound beliefs of their respective times. 

The second Branch of Philosophy is Moral Philosophy, more commonly known as Ethics.  It’s the Branch of Philosophy that focuses on codifying, defending, and recommending the concepts of Right and Wrong conduct; seeking to resolve questions of Human Morality by defining such concepts as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Virtue and Vice, and Justice and Crime.  The three major fields of Moral Philosophy are Applied Ethics (the study of an individual’s obligated actions in any given situation), Meta Ethics (the theoretical study of the meaning and reference points of a hypothesis of morality, and the relation of said hypothesis to Truth), and Normative Ethics (the study of how a person determines the moral course of action in any given situation encountered in that person’s daily life).  Like Natural Philosophy, Moral Philosophy has had great Human thinkers over the last three millennia: Ptahhotep, Vyasa, Hammurabi, Rishi Narayana, Rishabha Dev, Lao Tzu, Zarathustra, Kanada, Thales, Ezekiel, Siddhartha Gautama, Nahum, Cyrus the Great, Pythagoras, Leucippus, Euclid, Confucius, Plato, Boethius, Diogenes of Sinope, Aristotle, Mo Tzu, Epicurus, Han Fei, Archimedes, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius, Augustine of Hippo, al-Kindi, Johannes Eriugena, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun, Anselm of Canterbury, William of Ockham, Thomas Aquinas, Niccolo Machiavelli, Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, Francis Bacon, Rene` Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ayn Rand, and so many more.  Each of these Philosophers, within their various cultures, have tried to use their Reason to analyze and define the morality of every facet of everyday life, as well as the ethical ramifications of the practical application in the real world of the theoretical research of any of the fields of Natural Philosophy, often finding themselves opposing conventional wisdom.

The final branch of Philosophy is Metaphysics.  This particular branch of Philosophy is a bit more difficult to define as it deals with intangibles, concerned as it is with explaining the fundamental nature of Being and the various elements in the Universe that influence that Being; e.g., the dimensions of space and time, objects that occupy said space and time, cause and effect, possibility, uncertainty, and even existence itself.  The three principle categories of Metaphysical Philosophy are: Cosmology (the study of the origin, evolution, structure, dynamics, and eventual end of the physical and spiritual Universe); Epistemology (the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief, sometimes referred to as the “Theory of Knowledge”); and Ontology (the study of all the states and categories of Being and their relations, or, to put it more plainly, it basically deals with the what, how, and where of existence).  Unfortunately, because Metaphysics deals with so much that is intangible, the various metaphysical fields tend to be fraught with charlatans and grifters, preying on the desperate, the gullible, and the ignorant.  But, frauds aside, many of history’s great thinkers have tackled the Metaphysics of the Universe: Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Bertrand Russell, Aristotle, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Rene’ Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Leucippus, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Fyodor Dostoevsky, William of Ockham, Al-Ghazali, Friedrich Nietzsche, Werner Heisenberg, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Albert Einstein, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Martin Heidegger, just to name a few.

You may have noticed that a number of the Great Philosophers are listed in more than one branch of Philosophy.  It’s because every field of Philosophy is intertwined; each field of study leading to questions in another.  The interdisciplinary overlap had (and still has) Astronomers studying Epistemology, Biologists looking into Ethics, Computer Programmers considering Ontology. 

As you can see from my little summary of the topic, to say, “Let’s talk Philosophy,” can mean just about anything.  Therefore, to help things along, I’m going to break up the subjects I discuss into chew-able bites.  Going forward, most of these subjects will be addressed within their respective sub-categories.  For now, as I continue to delve into ‘Philosophy’, I’ll be discussing two things: my own Core Personal Philosophy, and what, beyond Personal Philosophy, the Average Jane and Joe in our culture thinks of when he, or she, hears the “P” word; namely Belief, Faith, Religion, and Spirituality.  Yep, next time I’m going to jump right in and lay out my positions on the quartet of subjects that has alternately caused both, the greatest comfort, and the greatest misery, in the history of Humanity.

Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016

Simply Me (continued)

In which out hero engages in some serious navel-gazing...

Topic #1 - Philosphy

“I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam!” – Popeye the Sailor

philosophy [fi-los-uh-fee] Noun:   1.  the rational investigation of the truths 

                                                       and principles of being, knowledge, or 

                                                       conduct;

2.  a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation;

I promised some serious navel-gazing, so what better place to start our journey than in the Land of Navel-Gazing, Philosophy.

When looking at what makes a person what he, or she, is at the moment, this is a good place to start.  There really isn’t anything more personal than an individual’s personal philosophy.  It’s the summary of the Sum of all those myriad physical and metaphysical parts in the calculus statement of the Self that I mentioned in the previous post.

A person’s core philosophy is the foundation on which is built the structure of their Being.  In computer terms, it is to the individual what the Registry is to the Windows operating system: i.e. it contains all the configuration information that tells that person how to behave within certain parameters.  To use a business concept, it is their Mission Statement.  Even before you get into the meat and potatoes of someone’s core philosophy, just it’s general nature and structure can tell you quite a bit about that individual: is their philosophy ambiguous and unfocused, subject to a variety of interpretations or frequent revisions; or is it clear and concise, orderly, succinctly defined, and as difficult to modify as something engraved on a steel plate?  Without knowing any of the details of their personal philosophies, the first person I described would probably be viewed as capricious and flighty, possibly an air-head, and most likely prone to practicing ‘situational ethics’; while the second would most likely be viewed as focused, precise, maybe a little OCD (or CDO: those of us who have it understand), rigid and unyielding, most likely unwilling to compromise.

That, however, would be the epitome of ‘judging a book by its cover’.  Things aren’t always what they seem at first glance.  Look at it this way: the body of the car may have some dents, dings, and scratches in it.  There may even be a few patches of Bondo and primer.  But that doesn’t mean that, when you pop the hood, you won’t find a clean, carefully-maintained beauty of a supercharged V-8 purring like a kitten and ready to chew the rubber off the wheels when the throttle is opened up.  While your first impressions of Personal Philosophy 1 and Personal Philosophy 2 may be correct, the same two philosophies could be described by someone else thusly: the first person is open-minded and willing to embrace new cultures, experiences, and ideas; while the second person is concise, organized, and firm in their convictions.  In other words, the personal philosophy of the Observer often colors the lens through which the personal philosophy of the Observed is viewed.

So, where am I going with this?  Simple.  This is the introduction to me proffering my own personal philosophy for your perusal.  I briefly touched on some of it in the Prologue, but now, I’d like to provide to you my core programming.  So, without further ado, I present to you, dear reader, my Foundational Principles (in no particular order):

1.    I am a Christian in that I believe in YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses; and that the Lord came to Earth in the form of a mortal man; to live among the people and become the Sacrifice to seal a new Covenant with Humanity.  I’ve seen too many Wonders and Miracles in my life to not believe, particularly the two Miracles that were the births of my daughters.  We’ll get more into this later;

2.    I try my hardest to live my life by the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish them to treat you, not necessarily as they actually treat you.  I don’t always succeed, but I do always try;

3.    I believe that Life is Sacred.  All Life.  Except cockroaches.  And spiders.  And mosquitos.  This may seem odd, even a bit hypocritical (except the creepy-crawly part), to those who know I support the Death Penalty and that I’m an unrepentant carnivore (okay, omnivore with carnivorous leanings).  I’ll also go into more detail in future posts regarding my stances on Life and Death;

4.    I love most people to some extent or another, but I have a completely Unconditional Love for my family and some very select, special friends.  I may not like some of the things they do, I may completely disagree with them politically, and I may even get angry with some of their actions from time to time, but it never diminishes my Unconditional Love for them.  You’ll notice I said “most people.”  This is because there are a handful of people sprinkled throughout my life who have earned my animosity.  This animosity has usually been rooted in feelings of pity and disappointment for that person, rather than hatred.  I have rarely felt true Hatred in my life, even though I have said, “I hate you!” in anger.  I must admit, though, that I have experienced a few times that burning, unbridled Hatred for another Human Being.  Thankfully, though, those instances have been extremely few and far between;

5.    My Loyalty is hard won, but even harder lost.  It’s been pointed out to me that I’m loyal to a fault; that I will often continue to stand by someone or something long past when I should have walked away;

6.    I believe that the primary thing that sets Human Beings apart from, and above, the animals on this planet is the gift of Free Will bestowed upon us by our Creator.  Free Will gives good ol’ H. Sapiens the ability to choose to act against his instinctual nature.  No matter how smart your favorite critter is, with the very few exceptions that prove the rule, animals cannot act against their instincts;

7.    I believe that we each have a Purpose in Life, and that it is our responsibility to discover it, set ourselves upon that path, and kick and scratch and claw to fulfill that Purpose.  As Aristotle put it, “where your talents and the needs of the world cross, there lies your vocation.” 

8.    I do not believe in predestination; that little Free Will thing makes it impossible.  But our Free Will means that we can actually choose to turn our backs upon our “First, Best Destiny,” as Mr. Spock put it, at any time and tread upon a different path;

9.    Again, because of Free Will, I believe that everyone, no matter how low they sink or how far down the path of Evil they go, experiences critical “pivot points” in their lives, to co-opt a term I first heard used in this way by Glenn Beck.  These are moments that present a person with choices they can make to turn their lives around, to grow and make themselves a better person, and to redeem themselves;

10.  I believe that, in addition to Free Will, we have another characteristic that differentiates us from the animals: the ability to Reason.  Our Creator granted us with the acumen to look at the Universe around us and gradually discern its inner workings;

11.  I believe in personal Honor; that an individual is only as good as his word.  I strive every day of my life to uphold this principle, so that those who have dealings with me know that they can count on me to always honor my commitments, even if those commitments leave me holding the short end of the stick.  People of ill will and intent can take away a person’s property, freedom, or even his life, but the only way a person can lose his integrity is to willingly surrender it;

12.  I believe that all people, but especially children, must live with the consequences of their actions; though the consequences can be somewhat mitigated for children.  Even if they apologize and are honestly contrite, everyone must learn that they can’t make the consequences of a poor choice just go away by saying, “I’m sorry”;

13.  I believe that Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong and never the twain shall meet.  Many people today place great stock in the concept of compromise in every situation; the philosophy that everything is shades of gray … that there are no absolutes of Right and Wrong.  There are two old adages that describe how I feel about the via media: “If you sit in the middle of the road, all that’ll happen is you’ll get run over;” and, “Anyone who won’t stand for something will fall for anything.”

14.  Further, I believe that it is just as important to do the Right Thing when no one is looking as it is to do it when being observed, maybe even more so;

15.  I also believe in the dichotomy of Good and Evil.  The Universe abhors a vacuum; for Good to exist, it must be balanced by Evil, and vice-versa.  The problem is that this is another area where our modern society has blurred the boundaries; painting every conflict in the gray shades of compromise, if not completely reversing the roles of these ancient adversaries.  Ayn Rand expressed it best when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged, “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win.  In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

16.  I believe that most people are born with an equal propensity for Good and Evil, and that, with the exception of an extremely rare few, the environment in which a child is raised is what ultimately determines how Good or how Evil that child will become;

17.  I firmly believe in Soul Mates.  I should, I married mine.  I believe that, somewhere out there, in the big, wide world, there is a special someone for everyone.  A partner with whom you will create a special synergistic spark that, without your specific pairing, the world will lack; 

18.  I do not believe that marriage is a 50-50 endeavor.  I believe that it is a 100-100 endeavor.  Both parties in the marriage must give 100% to their partner.  Any marriage where both people are only half-way trying is doomed to failure;

19.  I also believe that, in addition to your Soul Mate, there are several people out there that I like to call, “Soul Buddies.”  These are people you meet with whom you have a special connection … people with whom, for no known reason, you just hit it off from the start.  After meeting, you may not even see your Soul Buddy for years at a time, but when you do, it’s as if no time at all has passed;

20.  I do not believe that the end ever justifies the means.  If something is morally or ethically wrong in one situation, then it is wrong in all situations.  Claiming a noble motive for ignoble actions is just an attempt to legitimize bad, lazy behavior;

21.  I believe that the United States of America, warts and all, is the best thing to ever happen to the Human Race.  We may have hit some bumps and taken some wrong turns along the way, but our Constitutional Republic has provided more Freedom and created more general prosperity than any other system of government in Human History.  I’ll get into how I came by this conviction in future posts;

      So, there you have it: me, in a very large nut shell.  Or is it?  We actually have quite a bit more to cover; this is just the Foundation of the Structure-That-is-Me.  Why, in the subject of Philosophy alone, we’ve barely scratched the surface.  It is much, much more than an individual’s Core Personal Philosophy.

      Next time, we'll start looking at the three traditional branches of Philosophy: Natural Philosophy; Moral Philosophy; or Metaphysical Philosophy (or simply Metaphysics).  Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016