Plodding Insight

I have updated the Distributism series with an essay on Usury.  Technically I still consider it a placeholder, since I haven’t found a distributist to argue with on that particular topic.  But it certainly contains some food for thought even in its current form.

Georgia is calling for a cease-fire, but Russia refuses to pick up the phone.

Is that a war crime?

It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger end; but his present majesty’s grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that empire. It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end.

Everybody is scrambling to figure out what is going on in South Ossetia, where Russian and Georgian forces are fighting one another. Georgia tends to be described as a “staunch” ally of America, which has been trying to join NATO, leading to Russian complaints that it is a Western plot to “weaken” Russian “influence” in the area.

There is a province of Georgia called South Ossetia which declared its independence from Georgia in the early 90s, but hasn’t been recognized by the UN or pretty much anyone. Why it hasn’t recognized I can’t begin to guess, but it seems that fighting has recently broken out between Georgia and South Ossetians, and the Russian “peace keepers” in the region have blatantly taken sides against Geogia. Now we hear reports that both sides, the Russians particularly, are shelling civilian areas, and there are many casualties.

I personally see no difference between Russia’s desire to “influence” Georgia by preventing it from joining NATO and Georgia’s desire to rule South Ossetia, which according to wikipedia voted for independence by an astounding 99% with a 95% turnout. Its all a bunch of dick swaggering if you ask me.

What everybody is wondering is if this will turn into a wider conflict, even leading to war between the United States and Russia, with analogies already being made to the start of World War I. Seriously, people, if we let that happen, we deserve it. Our stance should be just to expect better of both sides. Georgia needs to back out of South Ossetia and Russia needs to back out of both South Ossetia and Georgia. If they either of them don’t do it, we should cut them off. No trade, no diplomatic recognition. Who wouldn’t be with us?

The president should get in front of the UN and tell both of them to stop acting like children.

Warning: deep post!  Plus I’m drinking!

Since my very first philosophy classes in college, I’ve been thinking about the conundrum of objective beauty.  What do we mean, when we say something is beautiful?  Are we saying something about the beautiful object itself, or are we only saying something about our own appreciation of it?

Classical philosophy listed beauty along with truth and goodness as the ultimate things to be pursued by human beings.  Does beauty belong in the list with these other things?  I believe it does, although I can’t fully articulate why I have come to this conclusion.  However my certainty in this belief has recently increase dramatically, and I think I am increasing in my understanding of the topic.

Here’s my current sketch of how to think about the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Truth:  When truth is most highly valued for its own sake, it is because the truth is beautiful.  If you don’t think this is true, all I can say is, you are not a mathematician.

Beauty:  Beauty is valued for its own sake because beauty is an inherent good.  Human beings don’t need convincing that beauty is worth pursuing.  BUT WHAT IS IT?  Hold that thought.

Justice, Observation 1:  When justice is pursued most passionately, it is not because justice itself is so attractive, but because injustice is so offensive to human sensibilities.  Our capacity to appreciate justice for its own sake pales in comparison to our capacity to rage against injustice.

Justice, Observation 2:  Injustice is the absence of some good that is required by nature.  By nature, I don’t mean plant and animal life, but, for lack of a better word, categories.  Common nouns.  Human being is a category, so is tree, etc.  (Hence: “human nature”)  When we argue that justice requires some good thing for a person, it is precisely because they are a person, a human being, that justice requires it.  Similarly, just treatment of animal life is a standard with specific reference to the category animal.

Goodness, Part 1:  There seem to be two kinds of goodness.  Here comes my big thesis!  There are moral goods, which we might say are goods that are required, and there are amoral goods.  I can explain the difference by defining evil.

Evil:  Evil is the absence of a due good.  That is, evil is the absence of a good that is required by justice, i.e. by nature.  It is clear that the categories of things, for instance that a certain thing belongs to the category of human beings, results in justice making demands.  When those demands are not met, we say that evil exists.

Goodness, Part 2:  There are two kinds of goods:  Goods whose existence is demanded by justice, and otherwise.  It seems obvious to me that beauty is not demanded by justice, at least not in any case I can think of.  It is good that a beautiful thing exists, but its absence is not usually an evil.  So for instance, a flower is a good thing and beautiful, but there is no demand of justice that a given flower exist.

THEREFORE, I propose the following definitions of beauty and justice:

Beauty is a good whose reason for being is contained in itself.

Justice is a good whose reason for being is external to itself.

I may soon find a better phrase to replace “reason for being” in each of these definitions, so interpret them with a grain of salt, in light of the following:

When a good ceases to exist, there is a possibility that its “reason for being” still exists.  When this is the case, we say that an injustice or evil has occurred:  There is reason for a good to exist, that does not in fact exist.  However, some goods contain in themselves their reason for being, so that when they cease to exist, their reason to be also necessarily ceases to exist, and no injustice occurs.  These goods are called beauty.

There are lots of stones left unturned here, but that is all for now.

Blue Moon put out a summer ale called Honey Moon.  (narf)

Verdict: CRAP.  Tastes like a cider.

Got lots of free time?  Read this and tell me if I’m crazy, or if he is.

I have rewritten my essay, What is Freedom? in the Distributism series.  Comments are welcome.

Replaced the old one.  Check it out here.

As a follow-up to the post below, does anybody reading this:

1) Use google reader or another rss feed reader to keep up with blogs or news?

2)  Use googel reader’s shared items tool or another similar tool to share rss items with others?

I think the shared items tool is pretty nifty, and I’m starting to be surprised that I haven’t run into more bloggers that use it.  Actually I know of exactly one, and she doesn’t count: Megan McArdle mentioned using it a while back, and I can’t find a link to it on her blog!

I added a clip of my latest shared rss feed items to the main page (bottom right).

Required Reading

In aviation, the statement that locating a blimp in a small region makes the vel-OH!1!! THE HUMANITY!!1!eleventy!!!

I just wrote this email to a group of smart dudes, so I might as well post it here also.

guys

I just mocked up an outline of an essay i want to write about how to think about government.  actually that’s not important, really.  it is only tangentially related to what I am asking you about.  I am soliciting any wisdom or insight you may have on the relationship between the idea of legitimate force in self-defense and the gospel message of turning the other cheek.

so far I have essentially conceived of these two ideas as contradictory.  I don’t know how to reconcile them.  I mean, jesus didn’t make a whip of cords JUST to turn over some tables, right?  He was bringing it down on human flesh.  My problem is that it is pretty easy to justify force in a variety of situations, just based on the reality of human existence — but that argument only remains coherent to the degree that it distracts the viewer from comparing it to jesus’s clear advocation of nonviolence.

is nonviolence an optional height of sanctity that is not demanded?  it seems like futile wishful thinking to say so.  does it just not apply to all situations?  what about police forces and armies fighting just wars?  what about joan of arc?  If anybody has seriously thought this through, please fill me in on your conclusions.

–kevin

To avoid giving the spambots my address, it is contained in an image file here.  Shoot me an email if you want to take a crack at this one.

With the new option to add comments to my shared items in Google Reader, that page has essentially become my blog in the sense of the place where I post little gems I find during the day with a comment or two.  This page will continue to hold more lengthy items, cooking posts, and stuff about me.

The Shared Items page is here, if you don’t have it bookmarked yet.  It also has an RSS feed, which I’ve checked to verify it includes my added comments.

On an unrelated topic, we’ve had a lot of spam comments get through here, so I tightened up the moderation.  Sorry if it takes a while for me to get to your comments in the moderation queue.

I created a page called Running Update to give the latest info on my running.  If you are interested in it you can bookmark it.  But I’ll probably mention it here if I do any real exciting updates.

On Ignorance

Good for a laugh if you haven’t read it in a year or two.

Good book. Great book. I can’t say if its his best, I have to digest it a little. Michael D. O’Brien has a lot of really great books.

Yesterday’s post expressed my exasperation at a certain plot twist. I’m still unhappy with the choice the character made, which was presented by O’Brien as the right thing to do. But perhaps it strikes a little too close to home for me to judge rationally. In fact, I know it does, because when I try to think about it in moral terms, it still makes me crazy. I was literally getting hostile at the author for the suffering he was putting the main character through.

And the author’s Afterward strongly hints that its all based on true stories.

So anyway, I’m through the book. Now, as a new father, I’m still getting used to the worrying that parents have to do about their children. It’s nature’s way of making sure even the dumbest of us mostly keep our progeny alive through their first decade or two. The worrying is unrelated to the book, but stay with me: On top of all the worrying, here I am, driving home from the train station today after reading O’Brien’s novel for the last hour on my ride home, and I am crying over a book. Not just getting watery-eyed, like when I read the book for a few minutes at lunch, but actually wiping the corners of my eyes and making noises, and then laughing at myself through the tears.

Does this remind you of somebody?

I’m reading his new novel, The Island of the World.

If this storyline is not resolved to my satisfaction, I’m going to take it personally.

More on this later.

Strains of Les Miserables…

The beer is homebrewed Irish Stout. The Father’s Day steaks are courtesy of your mom my mom.