Filipinos had been so enamored of Justin Trudeau that they don’t realize he’s just an empty suit. An empty suit lined by shiny but inherently dangerous or discriminatory policies. One of his more vacuous positions attacks people of faith and religions, which he defends by saying he adheres to science. That science being based on fact, is objective, and gives the truest account of reality.
Now I say vacuous because no serious modern thinker, from Kant to Schopenhauer to Wittgenstein to Popper ever questioned the notion that science cannot grasp all of reality, that our senses and realms of experience have such limitations that anyone could but acknowledge that the whole range of what is truly real is out there and yet for which no human is capable of knowing, let alone experiencing.
While it may or may not open up to admitting notions of God’s existence (depending on your inclinations), nevertheless, the point here is that to rely merely on science, while condescending towards religion and faith as mere superstition, is positively medieval.
This is not even to mention that science, what is there and provable, is itself — sadly — open to politics and ideologies. Like climate change, for example. But that’s a whole other discussion.
Speaking of Schopenhauer, I was part of a forum where the participants (mostly lawyers) kept reveling in the obscurity of their writing. Yes, you got that right: they were actually celebrating the fact that they were trained by their university to write in heavy pseudo-profound long-winded prose that nobody else could understand.
I could never understand the idiocy of that practice.
If they had a teacher (and, accepting the assumption, a great teacher) that would write in such a way is unfortunate. It doesn’t detract from the quality of his intellect but it does sadly indicate a blimp on his ability to communicate. And for students to then copy that sad trait is not the most intelligent thing to do.
Where does Schopenhauer come in? Well, aside from having one of the deepest minds in millennia, he was also a great writer. And he wrote this:
“Obscurity and vagueness of expression are at all times and everywhere a very bad sign. In 99 cases out of a hundred they arise from vagueness of thought, which, in its turn, is almost always fundamentally discordant, inconsistent, and therefore wrong. When a right thought springs up in the mind it strives after clearness of expression, and it soon attains it, for clear thought easily finds its appropriate expression. A man who is capable of thinking can express himself at all times in clear, comprehensible, and unambiguous words. Those writers who construct difficult, obscure, involved, and ambiguous phrases most certainly do not rightly know what it is they wish to say: they have only a dull consciousness of it, which is still struggling to put itself into thought; they also often wish to conceal from themselves and other people that in reality they have nothing to say. Like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, they wish to appear to know what they do not know, to think what they do not think, and to say what they do not say.”
Which makes me utterly miss Pope Benedict XVI. A genius with great clarity of mind, he is a master writer as well. Get his Truth and Tolerance to read during the Christmas holiday break.
Clarity of mind, unfortunately, is not something that one can say of liberals. Their positions on immigration, poverty alleviation, and same sex “marriage” leave a lot to be desired, reason-wise.
Writer Matt Walsh puts one particular strain of progressive “logic” this way:
“Men are scum; Men are dangerous; Women are better; Men can be women; Let men in the women’s room; Also don’t carry a gun; Only police can do that; Police are racist lunatics. Are you confused yet?”
Of course, even some religious folk are not immune from fuzzy thinking.
Remember the RH Law Supreme Court case? All that mystifying arguments piled against RA 10354 because of “abortifacients” and “the right to life,” when the real and true issue was government subsidization of contraceptives? Aside from the IRR, it should have never become an issue in the first place. That it was a complete waste of time can be seen in the fact that when religious folk want to complain about alleged abortifacients, the law they run to for protection is — you guessed it — none other than RA 10354.
But I guess none takes the cake (or steak) from the feminists.
A Phd candidate from Penn State alleges that eating meat promotes “male hegemony,” “aggressiveness,” the “patriarchy” and male toxicity.
Of which, all I can say is: have my steak well done, with ketchup on the side!
Will be taking a break, so see you all in 2018.
For now — not happy holidays but — a Jesus Christ filled Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
Twitter @jemygatdula
