Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.
"Civic"
refers to citizens who collaborate for individual
happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or
society.
Consider writing a personal
paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and
paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: This good citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” I want to improve my interpretation by
listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the
original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
It seems the
Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and no one has challenged whether or
not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this
independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states
deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble
is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who
collaborate for human justice.
Every citizen
has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in
the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try
somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the
goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies
grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to
discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Selected theme from this week (updated on February 6, 2021)
“The” afterlife has never been observed: in afterdeath, dust is certain and most accomplishments wane.
Several questions I answered this week use the protologism “afterdeath”,
which refers to the vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning.
Since a human being comes from the highly-dispensable ovum a
woman’s body produced, joined with one of nearly limitless spermatozoa a man’s
body produced, it’s unlikely “soul” is in the single-cell conception. If the
single-cell conception becomes an infant, it seems their only original
obligation is to constrain chaos during their lifetime, trusting any soul-destiny
to the pertinent higher power. Soul arguments are for me, and I don’t want anyone
to mimic them: let humans think for themseleves.
But if parents and caretakers don’t coach and encourage human
youth to accept individual power, individual energy, and individual authority
(HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than infidelity to self, teaching
them to perceive guilt over a soul seems imposition if not tyranny. With HIPEA and civic integrity, a human being can perfect their unique person and responsibly accomplish the happiness they desire. Nevertheless, most human accomplishement are temporal. Yet constraining chaos duuring one lifetime is a monumentally noble human goal.
So noble that, when hope-for and comfort-in soul helps an adult constrain chaos in their life, I celebrate for them and for us, their fellow-citizens.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-freedom-How-can-you-exercise-it?
I
am free to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to
myself. I exercise this freedom-from oppression by accepting “I don’t know”
until I learn of the-objective-truth which has been discovered. As humankind
invents new instruments of perception, they approach the-ineluctable-truth.
I
accept fellow-citizens as they are, where they are and behave for equity under
written law-enforcement in order to develop statutory justice. Justice is
necessary because some persons don’t accept citizenship. A few prefer beast hood
and deserve constraint.
https://www.quora.com/why-democracy-is-better-than-other-form-of-government-2/answer/Phil-Beaver-1
Robert Akridge on 12/5/2020
What are
operational definitions of integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity?
singularly and as a set.
Thank
you, Mr. Akridge for the question.
I
think “operational” means practiced and encouraged/promoted. Integrity
means behaving with self-interest in humility to the-ineluctable-truth; usually,
no action is required when the person must admit, “I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.”
Justice
means 1) behaving to support written law-enforcement and 2) reporting injustice
and well-grounded-remedy so as to prompt society to reform to statutory
justice. Peace means mutual, comprehensive safety and security in order
to encourage responsible pursuit of individual happiness “to ourselves and our
Posterity” rather than subjecting to the way of living someone else envisions. Strength
means accepting human-being and the individual power, the individual energy,
and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity to or by your person; under attack, strength means owning
the means and ability to defend self and family. Prosperity means earning
the income required to support the lifestyle you want.
Together,
these are the five disciplines I glean from the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution’s people’s proposition. They are the consequence of two historical
events: first, the humble-integrity the founders expressed in the 1776
Declaration of Independence. Notably, representatives of “the good People”
appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of their
intentions. Not one word appeals to a spiritual God, such as England’s Trinity;
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thereby, the founders separated church from state,
killed “red coats” on their own awareness, and sought France’s military
providence.
Second,
the framers, during the summer of 1787, created the world’s first
representative republic to be held accountable by “the good People”, We the
People of the United States as defined in the abstract preamble. The wonder of
the preamble is that each fellow-citizen may read it, may consider it, may analyze
it, may interpret it, may adopt it to guide civic and civil and legal and
private ways of living, and may practice responsible human independence under
its guidance.
If
there are no objections, I will use this response in an introduction to my
Quora Space, PreamblerPhilUS. I invite you to post there and, if you like, help
me develop it. For example, I understand rules are useful, and there are none.
Actually, I oppose censorship, because some of my clearest enlightenment came
with the closing: “Drop dead, old man; please get done in the next 30 minutes.”
(The
closing stunned me for a moment. I’ve also been invited to Coventry---British, social
purgatory).
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Should-we-take-philosophy?
Om Kaushik, if you need a grade, a
certificate, or a degree, yes. If you need information, I recommend online
encyclopedias of philosophy. My favorite is plato.stanford.edu, and I am cautious about the author. There, search
“truth” and you’ll see 1705 documents were found.
Europeans don’t have a clue as to the
proffered promise of the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and the 1787
U.S. Constitution. Most U.S. scholars are not much more humble. U.S.
“originalists” who want to preserve factional-British-American social dominance
seem aliens to the entity We the People of the United States. The U.S. will
never free itself of British, “obstinate prejudice” (Thomas Paine, “Common
Sense”, 1776) until most citizens own and practice their personal
interpretation of the preamble’s people’s proposition: self-discipline for
responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.
As a chemical engineer retired in 2001, after
35-years’ service, I embarked on classical-liberal studies to strengthen my
empathy for other people, which I didn’t realize was already strong. Before
long, I opined that professors have a quid-pro-quo: students must please them
for grades. Professors have no such hold on retirees. I began a random study
according to perceived interest in literature in my extensive-globe of
ignorance. If the literature does not serve my purpose, I put is back on the
shelf.
Consequently, I have earned the ability to
consider a sentence and adapt it to my opinion. For example, I speculate
(according to my informed preference) that when Albert Einstein said, "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
fellow-citizens may think: Research
without integrity is ruinous, integrity without research is incompetent.
This is not easy, but the sooner a person discovers this freedom, the better
their self-interest is served. I now view copyright as a form of censorship. I
think Wikipedia offers the best opportunity to defeat all forms of censorship;
http://gutenberg.org/ is constantly expanding. I also think Quora is
promising: When a person asks a sincere,
profound question, no one should stonewall sincere, thoughtful, and
well-grounded responses.
I write to learn and appreciate comments. Best wishes to all
in this, the season of human goodwill.
FB add on: "Taking"
philosophy for information rather than grades or degrees is preferred.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-protesting-important?
Speaking is important in intolerance for harm
to or from any person or association.
Humankind has lots of suggestions that man
and woman are in charge of constraining chaos in their lives and thus on earth.
About 2400 years ago, a Greek philosopher
suggested, in my view, the ineluctably good person (IGP) neither initiates nor
tolerates harm to or from any person or society. Not causing harm is the easy
part. Not-tolerating without-initiating harm may take more effort.
Expressing objection is insufficient initial
intolerance: objection ought to be accompanied by a concrete, feasible proposal
for reform. The speaker owes the listener patience to clarify both the
objection and the proposed remedy. Further, the speaker owes the listener the
chance to respond with alternative, empathetic concern and remedy. If speaker
approves listener’s alternative solution, they decide whether to continue the
improvement process or decide a course of action. On action is to reform unjust
written-law toward statutory justice.
Another Greek idea, in my interpretation is:
the IGP behaves for equity under statutory justice. Most persons accept that
they are human beings and develop more or less humble-integrity. However, some
persons accept beast hood and seem to like their lifestyle. Statutory justice
is maintained by IGP so as to encourage the beasts to reform.
Another serious problem is that some persons
attempt to consign their responsible human independence to a higher power---a
government or a God. However, neither government nor the God will usurp the
human being’s responsibility to constrain chaos during their lifetime.
FB add on: Intolerance of harm to or from anyone is responsible human
independence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-truth-Why-do-people-say-that-truth-is-relative-Is-truth-not-truth?
“Truth” is not a sufficient term, because of
your concern and many others. “Absolute truth” or “ultimate truth” is no less
relative to the speaker than is “truth.”
I don’t know the truth, but think it is
discovered by researching the-ineluctable-evidence. Humankind invents new
instruments and new dimensions by which to improve the-objective-truth and
perhaps approach the-ineluctable-truth.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-do-if-you-have-a-fixed-belief-that-does-not-make-sense-given-the-available-evidence-is-at-odds-with-the-cultural-norm-and-appears-to-be-resistant-to-all-reason?
By Graham C. Lindsay
“Fixed belief” is a new phrase to me. It
seems to some people a synonym for “delusion” or psychological disorder. Google
seems liberal with “A fixed belief is whatever you consider to
be absolute truth.” My view of the phrase seems closer to the liberal one but
with the-ineluctable-truth.
When I dropped out of Christianity, one of
the ideas I frequently shared is that belief would never again empower me to
turn my back on the-ineluctable-truth (although I had not yet discovered that
phrase)---unknown as it may be. A good friend asked, “Phil, do you believe in
love?” I answered, “Love is a shared experience and thus depends on two
behaviors---mutual trust and equitable commitment. Mutual appreciation seems
more reliable than love.”
But I do not know.
I continue to pursue the-ineluctable-truth and
retain humility to the possibility that God, whatever-that-is, controls the
unfolding of evolution. It seems the control is the laws of physics and its
progeny, including psychology. Nothing informs me of a soul that existed before
my Mom’s body produced my ovum. But for all I know, when my body, mind, and
person stop functioning, a soul will be judged by Jesus; much as I doubt it.
I’m prepared for that possibility.
Developing this thought process since 2006, I
recently discovered the possible impact of Genesis 1:27-28, in my view: despite
the unknowns, necessity charges man and woman to constrain chaos on earth.
The 4 thousand-year-old record attributes the command to the speaker’s God.
Cultures debate the character and power of God rather than doing the work to
appreciate fellow-citizens’ lives. It seems delusional to try to assign to God
the responsibility for peace on earth---to usurp necessity.
It is not necessary to extricate God and
Jesus from Christmas for humankind to develop an annual reminder of
humble-integrity to Genesis 27-28: Fellow-citizens remind each other to
constrain chaos through peace and goodwill on earth, no matter what afterdeath
you hope-for and take-comfort in.
FB on on: Peace
and goodwill on earth is necessity more than privilege or blessing.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-justice-as-fairness-affect-morality?
Sammy Beltran, you’ve asked a Rawls-profound
question and I appreciate it.
Every
person is a fellow-citizen. Most human beings discover that they have the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to either develop humble-integrity or tolerate infidelity to self. Some humans
have power and/or energy with difficulty to develop their human-opportunity. On
the other hand, not every person accepts that they are a human being rather
than a beast. They are still fellow-citizens and need to self-discipline from
actually-real harm to others. Beasts are not constrained until they actually
cause harm to the citizens who are developing humble-integrity according to
their natural abilities. The justice-system is paid for by the people of
humble-integrity.
Justice
as fairness un-justly requires people of humble-integrity to, behind a veil of
ignorance, both bear the harm and exonerate the beasts.
Black
Lives Matter purports to establish “consent of the governed,” by imposing on
white people. I discovered this from a discussion group I am in, where we in
the “White Caucus” got one training while those in “BIPOC Caucus” got different
training. I know this: the indoctrinator could not care less whether I want to
be called white, European, Scots-Irish, English, German, or fellow-citizen and
they demand that I learn and use BIPOC. The long-term vision is that the Bible
condones slavery, God is black in the image of his people, and ultimately,
whites are slaves. Human beings mistrust one*sidedness.
BIPOC’s
spiritual hopes are alright with me for them as long as they don’t generate
civic harm and I am free to reject Rawlsian consent of the governed: I do not
intend to put on a veil of ignorance.
Being
human requires personal decision not to be a beast.
FB
add on: "Consent of the governed" coerces
citizens to accept rather than mistrust one-sidedness. It's a
colonial-English-American imposition We the People of the United States,
'ourselves and our Posterity," rejected in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.quora.com/Does-knowledge-end-up-with-the-truth-and-beliefs?
Of the definitions by Merriam-Webster online, the one I
think comes close for your concern is “the body of truth, information, and
principles acquired by humankind.”
I think you are asking how to gain confidence about
actual-reality. I think humans do so by retaining the infantile human posture,
“I don’t know,” until discovering the-objective-truth. For example, if you find
a nugget of gold, analysis might show that it is feldspar. It works in
psychology just as well.
For example, my dear sister, now deceased, and I debated why
our mom often said that I did not love her until my age 4. I now think that’s a
burden placed on a child by his mom. Sis said Mom was self-centered. In
considering your question it occurred to me that Mom conceived me to love her. It
could be that only now, when it does not matter, can I face the question
sufficiently to satisfy my lonesome curiosity.
I’d like to leave you with two thoughts.
The-ineluctable-truth exists and humankind conducts research to discover it.
Their instruments of research are imperfect, so first perception can only be
regarded as the-objective-truth based on the-ineluctable-evidence and current
instruments for perception. As humankind invents better instruments,
the-objective-truth becomes more accurate and precise and may eventually
approach the-ineluctable-truth.
Erroneous human actions or behavior may change the course of
events, and those events conform to the-ineluctable-truth, regardless of
whether humankind knows it or believes it.
For example, the Democrat Party may be discovering that the
U.S. is governed by the rule of law, whether their leaders---Obama, Clinton,
Biden, Europe, China, and other aliens---believe it or not. We’ll see how it
turns out.
FB add on: What
prevails in the U.S.: beliefs or the rule of law? We'll see.
https://www.quora.com/messages/thread/9837302
What is the main difference between experts
and charlatans?
An expert believes he is right where a
charlatan knows that he isn't.
Philosophers wonder if they are right which
makes them distinctly different. Once a philosopher believes without a doubt
that he or she is absolutely right, then one becomes an expert.
“There are only two kinds of people I
hate in life, those who know everything and those who know nothing.”
Hate us as some will, but philosophers keep
us honest; we need philosophers more than ever today.
On Wonder, we are hosting a very important
debate this we to help clarify some ideas we've been discussing. Subjects this
week will focus on censorship.
Should we allow freedom of religious speech
when it become evangelical? Should we allow recruitment type posts from experts
who claim they know best and what is good for us? Even if they are doctors or
priests, should we question their authority?
Can we ever trust any expert or should they
all be scrutinized as potential charlatans. When do we know if an expert is a
delusional figure who toes-the-line of charlatans who operate behind the
scenes?
Past expert advice often grows outdated and
false. Who can we really trust? Is this paranoia?
Should we censor posts that question these
authorities as conspiracy speech?
All the questions and more will be up for
debate.
You are hereby
formally invited to ask questions and engage in our lively discussions, with
all do respect, so that we can form new and ground rules if necessary.
--
You're receiving this message because you are a contributor of Wonder.
Thank you, Ms. Ewens, for the invitation, and I will try to
help us. Before I try to ask a question, let me respond to the quotations and
concerns you raise.
First, I do not condone the word "hate" under any
circumstance. For example, I reject St. John's admonition of me, an un-elected
human being, in John 15:18-23 (John "representing" Jesus, who did not
write). I once thought an intruder was in my home and was closer to my wife
than me. I asked into the darkness, "How can I help you?" When there
was no response, I armed myself, locked the open door, and searched the entire
house to make certain no one was there. Then I resumed my night's sleep.
Second, I regard fellow-citizens as persons. A person may
not yet have accepted that they are a human being and therefore have the
opportunity to perfect their unique lifetime, no matter how low their present
lifestyle may be. I appreciate fellow-humans as they are, where they are and
hope to influence them to consider their remaining opportunity to develop
humble-integrity. In other words, I am as accepting of the concerns of an
adolescent teenager as a wayward octogenarian (I'm 77).
Third, I think censorship is regressive to the individual
and human-tyranny by the censor. Only through frank presentation of personal
thinking can fellow-man compliment the individual's struggle for
humble-integrity rather than civilization by either the society or humankind
itself. Therefore, let a person prevaricate, receive the public reactions even
if that means incarceration, and either reform or temporarily withdraw for
introspection. Certainly, if they cause actually-real harm, constrain them
under written law if not statutory justice.
Fourth, I am actively resisting censoring everywhere I
encounter it. For example, from 1996 through maybe 2016, I submitted letters to
the editor of my local newspaper, to which I subscribed for 53 years. When they
convinced me their business plan is to appeal to social democrats, I stopped my
subscription. When a conservative law professors' blog started censoring me
this year, I started posting on their FB:
see my comment (click lower right) today at
https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3850993378245104.
Fifth, it seems to me that human beings ought to help each
other discover humble-integrity according to personal vision rather than to try
to proselytize. But if a person responds to another's idea with proprietary
language, it should not stonewall the discussion. Both parties ought to allow
time for reflection. The results can be astounding.
For example, a recent conflation of ideas from 1) Genesis
1:27-28, 2) a scholar's remark that Homer wrote of human misery invited by sex,
3) a book about Western literature from 1513 to 1938 indicting sex for human
misery and loss, and 4) the Pope's current struggles with pederasty motivated
me to say to a friend, "Genesis 1:27-28 is a caution to man and woman to
constrain sex." He responded with Christian enthusiasm, "No, the word
is lust." Reflecting on the dialogue, I changed my claim to appreciation.
Genesis 1:27-28 suggests that of necessity (rather than mystery) the man and woman
must appreciate each other in order to constrain chaos in their life.
I would not have the above view of Genesis 1 had I not
fallen in love with my wife 53 years ago and embarked on family monogamy that
our daughters preserve in our 51st year of marriage.
I hope these ideas help for now, and I look forward to my
first question for Wonder.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-gain-wisdom?
I
don’t know.
I’m
developing kindness and humble-integrity, by which I measure personal
integrity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-acceptable-to-lie-to-your-partner-if-the-truth-would-hurt-them?
No.
Lies
move the loss and misery into the future and exacerbate them. Especially
painful is the consequence of a promise broken.
For
example, I once made a compact with a best friend to stop drinking to help him
control a habit.
Then I went on an overseas assignment I knew
would involve dinners with wine toasts. I asked my friend for relief from the
agreement during the trip. He said OK.
Later,
my friend died in an alcohol related accident. Decades later my pain is as
fresh as the day he died. I matters not that I don’t blame myself. What matters
is the loss and misery.
https://www.quora.com/q/myowntruth/What-can-you-do-today-that-would-bring-you-the-most-happiness? Frank Gallagher requested
your answer
|
May
I answer what I did that brought me happiness? I bought my second copy of a
good book.
I
was in a doctor’s waiting room, reading J.B Priestley’s “Literature and Western
Man,” 1960. On page 41, he’s assessing love for Shakespeare and attributes it
to Shakespeare’s “mistrust of one-sidedness.” I was thrilled!
I
had opened the door for a grandmother and her grandson, who was waiting
patiently. I asked him, “Do you like to read?” He said, yes, and I asked what
he likes to read. He said, “History, politics, and stuff.” I described my
admiration for Priestley’s opinion about 500 years of literature, pointing out
the “one-sidedness’ aversion and my recent experience with a dialogue on race
sponsored by my organization (the BIPOC caucus could not care less that I
prefer to be called fellow-citizen; what they demand is government by consent).
I told him Priestley, an Englishman, does not do justice to American
non-fiction.
I
gave him the book, and he looked like he couldn’t wait to read it. He heard my
name is Phil; his is Robert.
Back
home, I ordered a replacement book.
Pending
review by My Own Truth
No,
because they are phrases founded on reasonable evaluation rather than
the-ineluctable-evidence.
In
2006, I presented a talk, “Faith in the Truth” at LSU and at the Unitarian
Church of Baton Rouge, free-thinkers group meeting. There, Harold Weingarten,
in the Q&A asked, “Phil, have you presented faith in absolute truth,
ultimate truth, or Phil’s truth? I answered, “My faith is in the objective
truth.” Later, I discovered that “objective truth” is no better than “truth”:
the speaker is always promoting their truth. I’ve been working since then to
find a more effective expression that has better chance of appealing to the
listener’s experiences and observations (thank you, Harold). Here’s my current opinion
(I don’t know the truth).
Humankind
is charged by necessity to constrain chaos on earth. Consequently, we conduct
research to comprehend the-ineluctable-evidence and how to responsibly benefit
(lessening chaos being the measure of accountability).
Researchers
use a reliable form of Francis Bacon's scientific method to discover
the-objective-truth. Repeatability regardless of the research team is required
to establish reliability. Further, humankind constantly improves instruments of
perception, whereby improved comprehension of the-ineluctable-evidence requires
revision of the-objective-truth. Research continues until it seems perception
is precise, and humankind has approached the-ineluctable-truth. Nevertheless,
researchers reserve sufficient appreciation of the unknown to accommodate an
unexpected new instrument or even a new dimension of perception.
Bacon
died in 1626, and researchers had difficulty convincing the priests,
politicians, and their partnerships of reliability, because the-objective-truth
so deliberately (slowly) approaches the-ineluctable-truth. Many scholars attest
to reason as a more powerful human tool for discovering the-ineluctable-truth.
Their reasonable evaluations attest to absolute truth, ultimate truth, and
similar evaluative phrases. Often, tyrants use reason to repress
the-ineluctable-evidence.
For
example, the daily hiding and un-hiding of the sun as the earth rotates on its
axis is ineluctable evidence that the sun does not rotate around the earth. And
sailing into the horizon without falling off an edge is ineluctable evidence
that the earth is like a globe and is held together by something (Galileo, 1633).
Yet the ancients described the sun traversing the sky, after it came out each
morning, and the Vatican accepted the error in November, 1992!
The
object of research with humble-integrity is discovery, and the product is
the-objective-truth that may increase awareness of the-ineluctable truth. The
hyphens are intended to invite the reader not to separate the words, because
phrases alike “object truth” are neither accurate nor precise.
I
write to learn, so please comment.
FB
add on: Absolute truth or relative truth each yields
to the-objective-truth.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-individual-preferences-affect-morality?
I
think Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium,” suggested that the ineluctably good
citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or
association. The person who behaves so as to fulfill Agathon’s principle is
acting in self-interest. Constrain of chaos in life empowers perfection of the
unique person, no matter how conflicted the world may be.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-real-meaning-of-privacy?
I
think privacy is accepting that you are a human being who is developing
humble-integrity. With that lifestyle, there’s never a reason to be unkind to
another being.
https://www.quora.com/What-should-a-good-leader-not-do?
Never
break a promise or agreement. It invites woe, and woe often is cruel.
https://www.quora.com/What-did-you-value-most-when-you-were-a-child-Is-it-still-the-same-today-Why?
I became a newspaper thrower from my bike and therefore
earned my own money instead of collecting an allowance from my parents. I
bought my first car. After my first year in college, I became an engineering
scholarship co-op student and earned my way through the rest of school
expenses. In my late seventies, I try to be self-reliant, which means I know
when to seek professional help and do, then pay the bill.
https://www.quora.com/Are-humans-innately-immoral/answer?
I don’t think so.
However, it takes about 3 decades for a feral infant to
transition into a human being.
Initially, they need to be coached and encouraged to accept
individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to
develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self.
Most cultures teach their youth to seek a higher power to
save their lives, and thereby bemuse them in the struggle to believe.
With a culture of humble-integrity, most citizens would
constrain chaos in their lives and thus in the collective culture. Such a
culture never existed, but one has been proffered.
The 1776 Declaration of Independence from England expresses
humble integrity by not appealing to spiritual authority
FB add on: Most
human beings may be misled by their culture and are not naturally immoral.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-truth-REALLY-set-one-free?
and https://www.quora.com/Is-the-pursuit-of-truth-always-the-right-thing-to-do/answer?
I have worked since 2006 to resolve that question for
myself, and feel that the answer is no, because “the truth” is too
controversial.
As a consequence, I write “the-objective-truth” to
represent discovery of ineluctable-evidence. After discovery, there remains the
question of perception. New instruments improve perception and comprehension of
the-objective-truth. Eventually, improved perception allows humankind to
approach ineluctable-truth, which may be subject to the-ineluctable-truth if
new dimensions are discovered.
In these phrases, the hyphens invite the reader not to
separate any of the words, which would lessen the precision. For example,
“objective truth” is subjective and “ineluctable-truth” yields to
“the-ineluctable-truth.”
Much of Western scholarship holds “nature” to be less
reliable than “reason,” and I think that is because of the self-correcting
research under humble-integrity. For example, ancient explorers sailed into the
horizon without fear of “falling off the edge,” and perceived the curvature
ahead suggested a huge globe. The telescope increased the perception that the
earth is a globe, and photos from space confirm it.
I think “the-objective-truth” based on
the-ineluctable-evidence sets one free.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments.
FB add on: The-objective-truth
sets an individual free.
https://www.quora.com/Which-philosophy-do-you-identify-yourself-with-Why?
Along with no-harm hope and comfort concerning
the afterdeath,
that vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning, I develop humble-integrity
toward the-objective-truth, low as my comprehension may be. Usually, I
don’t know the-objective-truth.
The-objective-truth improves as humankind invents new
instruments for perception, and thereby approaches the-ineluctable-truth.
Both physics and psychology conform to the same laws. One consequences is that
ineluctably good humans do not lie, intending to lessen
human misery and loss rather than to follow some metaphysical rule.
So far, humankind has not discovered the process-of
perception by which to resolve whether or not only humble-integrity to
necessity demands that woman and man appreciate each other so as to
constrain chaos on earth. Constraint requires discipline to fidelity. And if humankind
is held accountable by more than the power of physics and psychology, a God,
for example, it seems prudent to retain sufficient appreciation for the
God, in order to complete personal hope and comfort in doubt about the
afterdeath. In other words, neither theism nor atheism seems to accommodate the
God.
Nevertheless, man and woman cannot consign the
responsibility to constrain chaos-in-life to the God---cannot usurp necessity.
I hope this helps and share the philosophy hoping to learn improvements.
If this philosophy appeals to you, know that its description
used original phrases and words, such as afterdeath, defined above and
highlighted. The neology accommodates my hope that after my person stops
functioning I will have attained my unique perfection. I do not want anyone to
mimic my hope to replace theirs: I do want people to behave to constrain chaos
in life. This is an important aspect of my work. I try to imagine how normative
phrases are used to tyrannize the minds of humans, whom I love, and find new
expressions that attract the reader’s self-interest based experiences and
observations.
For example, Abraham Lincoln is famous for his 1863 message,
“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.” Such government never existed, and Lincoln’s dream harkens to
imposed “self-government,” and “consent of the governed.” The later phrase came
first from Catholic literature (1433), subsequent literature leading to John
Locke (d. 1704, England), and on to the Declaration of Independence (1776). It
is key to the colonial-American English oppression that the U.S. has yet to
reform. The reform is proposed in the preamble and the rest of the 1787 U.S.
Constitution.
In application of my philosophy, if someone said to me,
“Phil, you must reform from responsible human independence as you view
the preambe, in order to constrain chaos for the common good,” I’d
respond, “I’ll never consent to such tyranny.”
I write to learn and hope for comments.
FB add on: Hope
for your preferred afterdeath. Meanwhile, constrain chaos in life.
https://www.quora.com/What-hard-truths-of-life-does-everyone-need-to-realize?
Over 4 thousand years ago perhaps a Mesopotamian recorded
the suggestion that man and woman must constrain chaos on earth (Genesis
1:27-28, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and
subdue it”).
Priests and politicians theorize that a power higher than necessity
delivered the responsibility. Together, they created competitive doctrine by
which to pick the people’s pockets by consent. (Beware the phrase governance by
consent!
One doctrine is that if you don’t constrain chaos in your
life, you’ll be reincarnated as a lower animal. Another says you’ll burn in
hell. People who adopt such doctrine willingly pay to support the institution.
The doctrine only increase chaos on earth, and the people pay for the misery
and loss.
The actual-reality is this: as he or she develops awareness
and intent, being a human-being must be accepted. And it takes at least 3
decades for modern human to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a
complete life. And the human has the individual power, the individual energy,
and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop humble-integrity or
tolerate infidelity to self. And some humans discover neither HIPEA nor
integrity, so the best an individual can do is constrain chaos in their
individual life and hope some fellow citizens follow the example.
Living under humble-integrity is so difficult some people create
a personal God, often following a doctrine, by which to gain comfort and hope
as they nevertheless take charge of constraining chaos. The make no attempt to
usurp necessity.
An added note: This morning, in another response, I wrote
that the Genesis reference, by being specific to man and woman, may be early
sex-education. This afternoon, someone remarked, “No, it’s a warning against
lust.” I reform to suggest mutual appreciation rather than sex or lust.
FB add on: Appreciation
is a key to constraining chaos in a life
Update from May 27, 2018 on December 1, 2020
"Research without evidence is lame, evidence without
research is blind"
I think “science” has become a misnomer used for political
influence, much as “truth” and “God” are used however the speaker wishes. It is
up to the listener to apply humble-integrity---stick to evidentiary research.
Humankind is charged, by the potential for survival, to
constrain chaos on earth. Naturally (both physically and psychologically) humankind
developed research to examine objective evidence rather than debate metaphysics.
Research on imaginary evidence is prohibitive, so humankind invented a viable
process for conducting research, and the research-process is called “science.”
Whereas “reason” is erroneously held to be final/ultimate, the scientific
process is self-correcting.
The process steps I think of just now include: imagine/perceive
an opportunity to learn from apparent evidence; list the perceived cause and
effect variable and prioritize them, using proven interrelated-theory; devise
an experiment so as to discern whether the opportunity is valid or mere mirage,
checking that the controlling variable is included; conduct the experiment; if
the evidence is valid, design experiments (after variable review and
addition/prioritization based on the first experiment) to confirm discovery and
suggest its utility; evaluate the results; draw and report conclusions for
review; if proof or utility is weak, consider a new experimental design; if the
evidence is proven valid, conclude discovery of the-objective-truth; and remain
vigilant for new instruments for perception that could modify the discovery.
When perception is invariant and interconnectedness to related theory increases,
the research has approached if not attained the-ineluctable-truth. Einstein’s
theory of general relativity and its relevance to 100 years of research serves
as a good example of this process.
There are many opinions about the scientific process, online
and in textbooks. We could choose to forget “science” and discuss research,
evidence, economic viability, repeatability, integrity, manipulation of
statistics, the-objective-truth, knowledge, religion and other related topics.
Even Albert Einstein’s famous syntax can be demystified: "Research without
evidence is lame, evidence without research is blind" Unfortunately for
us, Einstein let the appeal to “speak to the science and religion audience”
hide forever thought I can only opine on by reading lots of Einstein political
philosophy (not “science”).
In the same way, “ourselves and our Posterity” need not
bemuse ourselves over “scientism,” knowing that research on
ineluctable-evidence rather than metaphysics empowers us to constrain chaos on
earth.
By their own statements and actions, people invite either
misery or joy.
My state, Louisiana, is specific on this, providing that
expression is unlimited but the speaker may be held responsible for any
consequences.
It’s standard that you can’t yell “Fire” and be exonerated
for consequences.
Snake-handling touches on both freedom of speech and freedom
of religion; https://greensboro.com/relatives-fight-for-snake-handlers-children-snake-handling-grandparents-seek-custody-of-their-five-grandchildren/article_69b84e2c-8795-59ab-aef4-a82d8d9783f4.html.
Of necessity, the court must be involved in assigning custody when parents
orphan their children by religious snake-handling.
Genesis 1:27-28 suggests that man and woman must constrain
chaos on earth. Churches attempt to usurp the demand for constraint, claiming
to assign chaos-constraint to the church’s God. People pray to their God to
step in, reform them, and save them from their habits. Some never consider:
rejecting infidelity to my person is my responsibility, especially when I am
unfaithful to my person.
Ineluctably successful people don’t lie to themselves, in
order to lessen human misery and loss.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-discover-your-purpose?
Perhaps in all my efforts to respond to questions this is
the premier time to say, “I don’t know.”
Yet, I must share what I think: humble-integrity. There’s
excellent experiential-guidance in classical literature, and it can be read by preference
to learn what your human constrains allow (must earn what you and your loved
ones eat and provide other human essentials) and not worry about what you miss.
It is important to choose what you read, in self-reliance.
The gem in each piece is elusive, often because the writer
did not have the benefit of the centuries we can observe. Therefore, you have
to independently interpret classics. (Cliff-notes and such are opinions.) For
example, on reading 4 dialogues: Euthyphro,
the Apology, Crito, and Phaedo,
by Plato, I earned the opinion that Socrates died to uphold the rule of
law, even when the system has not been improved to statutory justice.
Additionally, the story suggests the need to separate church and state;
metaphysics and physics; opinion and justice; doctrine and the-objective-truth.
Unconvinced that there is more to me than body, mind, and person, I am less
interested in church doctrine as to why Jesus died. (I think Jesus died because
people decided to kill him to stop his message that they can control chaos in
their lives---can perfect their unique person.)
Here are a few ideas I try to develop for myself. I am
human, and therefore own the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity
rather than tolerate infidelity to my person. A humble person neither initiates
nor tolerates harm to or from anyone; intolerance is usually expressed by frank
direct-objection, but may require reports to first responders, and, under
attack, requires defensive-strength. (Still facing a discovered, open door at
midnight, my gun and wife at the other end of the house, I froze in fear,
gathered my senses, and then asked the room’s darkness, “How can I help you?”
With no answer, I armed myself, toured the house turning lights on and off,
then resumed my nights’ rest.)
Whatever power humankind reports-to assigns to woman
and man the responsibility to constrain chaos in their lives on earth.
(See Genesis 1:27-28, a pre-Abrahamic text.) The woman is responsible to her
viable ova and ought to protect them from a wanton man; her responsibility may
extend to not gestating an embryo she knows is doomed to abuse. The man is
responsible to defend every woman, because each one represents a crowd: during
her fertile years, she may produce 400 viable ova. In other words, Genesis
1:27-28 may be the first, reliable civic-instruction regarding fidelity in
intimate human relationships: sex.
Despite a not-untypical, partially-ruined past, one of my
humblest appreciations is being the husband in a family-monogamy for life, now
in our fifty-first year of civil marriage. And our children appreciate the
monogamy for life. I was 24 and had resolved myself to bachelorhood when I met
a serenely confident woman and courted her, even though I could not articulate
her excellence to me and our world then.
I must add one thought. A career, whether it be in several
services to fellow man or one, 35-year job as in my case, is essential to
self-discovery. Without that daily contact with fellow citizens, the individual
cannot mimic the daily give-and-take of human conversation, collaboration, and
connection, in order to constrain chaos. The same is true of monogamy for life.
It is not easy, but I have no desire to know the consequences of promiscuity in
psychological intimacy, much less sex.
I have wandered into the concluding-suggestion that
humble-integrity empowers self-discovery.
FB add on: Humble-integrity
empowers self-discovery
https://www.quora.com/Are-crimes-immoral-Why?
The first responsibility of being human is to earn the
lifestyle you perceive you want. In a culture of such responsibility, citizens
neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from fellow-citizens, especially their
person. But not all citizens participate, so the responsible citizens have to
compensate for the dissidents.
Some people think crime pays, but it is only because they
are willing to risk dependency on bureaucrats who feed and shelter convicted
criminals. They compromise their personhood for food and shelter.
https://www.quora.com/What-separates-the-strong-from-the-weak?
Self-discipline to humble-integrity. That is to say,
integrity to the-ineluctable-truth. In other words, to accept and express, “I
don’t know,” when that is so.
In the smaller things, it’s to say to a child, “Look! The
earth’s rotation is un-hiding the sun.” Instead of preserving the
vision-constraining convention, “The sun’s coming out.”
There is so much I don’t know! I write to learn and
appreciate comments.
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-moral-obligation-to-buy-green-products-Why?
No. It’s a free market, and entrepreneurs are divided
between those who see a need and take the risk of supplying the product or
service and those who perceive opportunity to pick people’s pockets and take a
chance on finding enough gullible customers.
If a green product is you most economical option, it’s OK.
However, if there is a large energy component in its production, it’s not
likely to be economical, so take the non-green option. By all means, don’t buy
green because it is government-subsidized.
I thought of a couple of analogies, one funny and the other
potentially devastating. Should a person buy an elixir of love because someone
is selling bottles of it? Should a person engage sex-change services because
someone is offering them?
https://www.quora.com/What-does-identity-mean-to-you-as-an-individual?
I’ve studied what I am more than who I am. First, I like
being a human being among humankind. Second, I like being a human who is also
among We the People of the United States.
What that means to me is this: Phil Beaver practices the 5
U.S.-disciplines---integrity (wholeness and fidelity), justice, peace, strength
(also in defense), and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy and encourage
responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
FB add on: Human identity
So far, no generation of humankind has accepted the
4-thousand year-old Mesopotamian suggestion in Genesis 1:27-28, in my view: Man
and woman, constrain chaos on earth.
As with all your ancestors, your generation is privileged
with the opportunity to stop trying to consign to a higher authority (God or
government or their partnership) the demands of living on earth.
As one of the 2020, “ourselves and our Posterity,” I work to
interest fellow citizens in the humble-integrity needed for responsible human
independence. My sole claim to success is that we are in our 51st
year of family monogamy for life (the children are aware of the monogamy), and
I’m in my 53rd year of courting my wife.
I do not feel alone except by this articulation and more: The privilege of constraining chaos during your lifetime.
Was
it John Locke or Albert Einstein who opined they were wrong?
FB
add on: Einstein suggested that
ineluctably-good-people never lie so as to lessen human misery and loss from
infidelity.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-the-Golden-Rule?
It’s a strategy to coerce people into a psychological
offense no civic citizen would dream of: to approach a fellow citizen and ask,
“Are you saved?”
During my career, I worked with people from over 40 ethnic
and religious backgrounds and observed that many of them had more
humble-integrity than I previously imagined. I began to develop my personal
integrity and am still working toward humble-integrity.
There are at least 7 versions of the rule, and I don’t know
one that is not egocentrically judgmental.
I hope my comments help.
I don’t think so. We’re already at work inventing new freedom
to connect.
Also, I think they partially relieve fellow citizens of
obsolete copyright-censorship. Any phrase whose originator can be identified by
Internet search practically needs no citation, because readers can find
affirmation they prefer rather than rely on the writer.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-six-goals-of-the-preamble-of-the-Constitution?
Addressing the U.S. preamble’s people’s proposition,
reducing the disciplines to nouns, in my interpretation they are: integrity
(wholeness and fidelity), justice, peace, strength (in national defense, too),
prosperity, and responsible human independence “to ourselves and our
Posterity.”
Why did you ask?
https://www.quora.com/Are-Americans-conscious
Yes.
quora.com/I-really-dont-see-how-or-why-morality-matters-outside-of-self-preservation-Whatever-angle-you-look-at-it-from-morality-always-comes-back-to-what-feels-good-and-benefits-us-Why-ought-we-do-that-which-is-good?
(by Ray Richard)
Rather than self-preservation, humans can pursue
self-interest: do that which is good in humble-integrity toward your person
rather than to satisfy appetites. Fidelity to self is measured by
humble-integrity.
That is to say, regarding your person, neither initiate nor
tolerate infidelity.
FB add on: In
self-discipline, neither initiate nor tolerate infidelity.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-personal-questions-differ-from-philosophical-questions-2?
(by Nicole Libo-On)
Philosophers review all opinions about a topic that they
choose to consider, then leave it to the reader/listener to take their
preferences. Cultural evolution repressed humble-integrity; we can reform.
Socrates, 24-hundred years-ago (HYA) disturbed listeners by
sequencing questions for living that left only two actions: accept
the-ineluctable-truth or choose arrogance. Finally, Socrates asked, in my
interpretation: Which sustains life: the
good or God? This is not party talk. Athens gave Socrates the unjust choice:
exile or death. Socrates chose death. Why?
A Mesopotamian, about 40 HYA, opined that man and woman are
charged to constrain chaos on earth. See Genesis 1:27-28, especially the demand,
"Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” Since then, dominant
social philosophy conflicted metaphysics about the “God” in Genesis 1, leaving
it to the reader to individually constrain chaos in their life. Diverse listeners
reason that God’s image is red, brown, black, white, or metaphysical, and thus
attempt to usurp the demand to human responsibility for peace during each
person’s lifetime.
Again, 24 HYA, Homer imagined humankind obsessed by sex. Some
subsequent philosophers prized pederasty, some recommending that the adult commit to care for
the sex-object for life.
Only 0.06 HYA, J. B. Priestley in his book, “Literature and
Western Man” (1960), reviews Western literature from Machiavelli (“The Prince,”
1513) to Tom Wolfe (d. 1938). On Page 444, Priestley laments his perception
that man is lost: “[W]e are now piling on to sex the whole gigantic load of our
increasing dissatisfaction, our despair, a burden far greater than it can
safely take.”
Just a month ago, October 13, 2020 the Vatican started
internal criminal-trial in a case of two priests charged in a boy’s sexual-abuse.
Abuse is pedophilia executed without pederasty’s care-consideration. If
anything, constraint of chaos within the metaphysical word has declined in
these 4 thousand years, including the 16 hundred years since the Church
canonized itself.
Consider now a 24 year-old man who dated Protestant women,
considered courting a few, but felt rejected in each possibility. Without
expectation, he meets an attractive Louisiana French-Catholic woman who owns
serene confidence. His every overture to male dominance, she soundly rejects.
He feels he met the love of his life and successfully woos her. His wedding
vows are independently for monogamy for life and extend to any children they
may beget. When things go wrong on the wedding day, she addresses his concerns
with, “Enjoy this; our day.” When other men are attracted to her, he talks to
her about it, and he manages his frustrations and fantasies. Nearly 2 decades
later, he hesitates about signing the construction contract for the home they
designed, and she says, “That’s not the man I married.” After 3.5 decades in
that home, we are 51 years into our family monogamy with 2 daughters and
deceased son and also “Ma,” whose room is now a guest room.
Perhaps after my first decade I had a precious doubt that a
worthy God would express the threats in Revelations 22:18-19. Late in my second
decade, I acquired an appreciation for Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”
and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man.” Sophomore “American
Literature” instilled reverent-appreciation for the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution.
Together with the founders’ humble-integrity, expressed in
the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1787 U.S. Constitution offers an
achievable better-future that is independent of sexual enslavement, because
most citizens in their self-interest develop independence from physical
appetites. The 1787 intentions would be well developed if the First Congress,
1789-1793 had not re-established British-colonial tradition and legal
precedents during the past 233 years, especially Protestant-state partnership
disguised as “freedom of religion” to repress humble-integrity. The
church-state partnership fears humble-integrity in the people.
My best expression of the 1787 U.S.-intention is my
interpretation of the preamble to “ourselves and our Posterity,” the citizens
of November 29, 2020. My interpretation assumes 1) no one agrees with me and 2)
anyone may suggest improving my view:
Phil Beaver practices the 5 U.S.-disciplines---integrity (both wholeness
and humility), justice, peace, strength (in defense), and prosperity, “in order
to” enjoy and encourage responsible human independence “to ourselves and our
posterity.”
When my behavior is at stake, I prefer responsible human independence
to solidarity, reason, liberty, revelation, scholarship, precedent, supremacy,
coercion, force etc. yet appreciate both 1) the demand to constrain chaos in my
life and 2) obligation to the 1776 “Supreme Judge of the world.”
Philosophers swamp us with essays about the truth then leave
it to us to discover the-ineluctable-truth and otherwise admit: I don’t know. We human beings are capable of
the task. But not every person participates.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/alitos-way
A proprietary language can lead a group
afar from original goals, and I think this has happened to the U.S. Supreme
Court, in its erroneous drive to preserve Congressional legislation as
tradition. Instead of “freedom of religion” the U.S. should be preserving the
humble-integrity that is expressed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence and
the 1787 U.S. Constitution. The combination was a proffered-proposal to break
from English “consent of the governed” to U.S. public discipline to
humble-integrity. The usurpation of humble-integrity imposed by Congress in the
1791 Bill of Rights re-established colonial-British tyranny by Congressional
tradition rather than English constitution.
The connection of dots begins with a 4
thousand-year-old Mesopotamian power-mystery (metaphysics), in my physics-view:
Necessity requires man and woman to constrain chaos on earth. Most cultures
since then have argued that their doctrine usurps necessity. The resulting
chaos bemuses men and women from developing appreciation and fidelity during
their lives. Rather than a sex warning, as portrayed by too much of humankind’s
literature and the present chaos, Genesis 1:27-28 may be viewed as caution for
men and women to develop appreciation for fellow-citizens in order to constrain
chaos in their individual lives.
Leap forward to the 1774 colonial
Articles of Association; loyal British subjects in the 13 eastern seaboard
states include complaints about 2 key hypocrisies beyond taxation: 1) constitutionally
Protestant England tolerates Catholic annoyance from Quebec in bordering
Protestant colonies and 2) imposes the colonial African-slave-trade.
The 1776 Declaration separates
metaphysical authority from civic authority by listing the complaints and then
stating that “the good People,” through representatives, appeal “to the Supreme
Judge of the world” for reliability of their intentions. The circumstances that
motivated the authors to so separate church from state is unique, because 99%
of free “good People” were factional-American-Protestant English-subjects who
in no way would object to the Trinity, even the British Trinity. True,
Unitarians labeled “Diests” influenced the Declaration’s four expressions of
global authority: Nature’s God, Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world, and
Providence. As it turns out, France provided the military strategy and power
that accomplished the Cornwallis-surrender to both countries at Yorktown. A
global ally affirmed the intentions of “the good People,” the rest of the world
accepted the outcome, and the Trinity had not been challenged.
The shocking consequences of the 12-state
constitutional convention in the summer of 1787 was not known until the
Committee of Style met between September 8-12 and added a people’s proposition
to the U.S. premble’s presentation of the amendable U.S. Constitution, signed
on September 17, 1787. Shock! No more confederation of states! And no Trinity!
Nothing in the 1787 Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed in the
1776 Declaration. But the First Congress attempted usurpation in 1791, and the
people still suffer the tyranny.
I understand the American Bar Association
is distinguished for celebrating Magna Carta, 1215, which was negotiated by a
Catholic Bishop. (Martin Luther posted his Protestant-defining objections in
1517.) The English Bill of rights, 1689, requires a Protestant monarchy.
Parliament has 26 seats for the Church of England. The proffered U.S. proposal
is public discipline according to humble-integrity, conforming with the physical
and psychological responsibility to constrain chaos. There is no excuse for
Congress and the Court to involve We the People of the United States in English
tradition.
The urgent reform the Court should
support is Congress to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage responsible
human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity” rather than to promote
competitive, multi-national religious institutions. Humans who want religion
cannot be constrained from developing it, and their individual authority to
choose cannot be denied. Likewise, our posterity cannot be constrained from
progress as actual-reality including its metaphysics unfolds.
Congress can usurp neither human
necessity nor the Supreme Judge of the world nor the mystery, and its attempt
to do so is tyranny.
FB add on: The U.S. Supreme Court-Congress-partnership preserves egregious
tyranny against the 1776 Declaration and the 1787 Constitution that the entity
We the People of the United States does not attempt to constrain.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/pursuing-truth
Rachel Lu addresses an
ages-old issue: separation of church and state. A perhaps Mesopotamian thinker
4 thousand years ago suggested, in my view: man and woman are charged to
constrain chaos on earth. See Genesis 1:27-28. Since then, theists turned their
backs on the demand "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and
subdue it.” Instead they claim to speak for the author of the demand. I imagine
the author appreciates neither the chaos theism causes nor theists’ harshness
toward non-theist fellow-citizens.
I wonder why Lu does not address Albert Einstein’s 1941
suggestion, in my view, that physics and psychology report to the same laws.
My greatest concern, though is the nonsensical “the precise
relationship between different truths.” Maybe the article “the” concerns me
more than “precise.”
Let’s do away with the inadequate word “truth.” The word
“science” is troublesome, too, because it references research with
humble-integrity toward the ineluctable evidence---an inerrant study. Thereby,
the researcher may discover either 1) a false hypothesis that should be well
documented for the future or 2) the-objective-truth. The researcher invents new
instruments for perception and re-visits the-objective-truth. For example, the
telescope put to rest the flat earth, and satellite photos confirm it is a
globe. By refining perception of the-objective-truth, researchers approach
the-ineluctable-truth.
I hope some readers like these hyphenated phrases that keep
the willing reader from separating the all-important article, “the.” Humankind
has too much debate over “truth,” an inadequate term.
YOUR COMMENT
HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND POSTED.
As of 12/5, my comment was not posted. Lawliberty reserves
the right to censor ideas.
Quotes
from the article:
“[I]t is reasonable to ask whether Christianity really
has much to offer bona fide seekers of the truth.
If truth is unitary,
then all true insights can necessarily be harmonized, but intellectual labor
may sometimes be needed to work out the precise relationship between different
truths.
religious fundamentalism
and its mythical war against empirical science.
Other scientists, such
as John William Draper, paved the way for Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse
Tyson with their ignorant, abusive indictments of religious faith.
Christians need not (and
indeed should not)
choose between serving God, and learning from the natural sciences. God is not
at war with the world he created.
However, the scientific
community itself tilts strongly towards the leftwards side of the political
spectrum, and members of that community are often willing to use their podium
in service of cultural and political goals that fall well outside their real
areas of expertise.
Darrow certainly showed
no interest in protecting thoughtful Christians from the abusive overreach of
philosophical materialists.
Both science and
theology play an important role in furthering the common good. One connects us
to tradition, and supplies us with insight that may be crucial to finding our
true good in this world and the next. The other supports human health and
safety, improves standards of living, and depending on one’s point of view, may
have deeper import.”
Phil
Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which
can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it
obviously does not work.
Phil is agent
for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit
corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays
from the latest and going back as far as you like.
No comments:
Post a Comment