Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
1.83K subscribers
4.43K photos
827 videos
14 files
199 links
Posts written by a pseudointellectual moron.
Download Telegram
James Wilson, one of our founding fathers, during the ratification proceedings in Pennsylvania, concisely outlined the modern, enlightened conception of the state. The ancients and the medievals understood the logos; they grasped that man is a part of the natural order, the rational organization of the universe. Man, like all other beings, has his natural, just, and good place within the world as designed by God. To those before, government was simply a part of the order of the world, and your place in it is a part of that natural order. But to enlightened fellows like Wilson, "governments in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and of accident," and it requires a special group of people to come together and, based on the enlightened principle of consent of the governed, decide "calmly, concerning that system of government, under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live." These fellows know better, you see. Live in accordance with nature as you are created into it? Nay, man is to dominate nature, to subject it to his whims, and use it to extract whatever he desires from it.

Are you seeing the connection here? This rejection of the Logos, of rational ordering of the world, of the nomos, runs deep. It's perhaps the fundamental sin of the West, and it pops up again and again. We find some of the latest incarnations in the modern left. You see, they know themselves better than God does. He feels like a girl. So, he says, he is one. This is what progress is. It is the continual, ever expanding rejecting of the natural order combined with an insistent that we know better, that we will bend the universe to create something superior to what God has made for us.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
Aristotle, for example, has this right when he discusses the evils of suicide. To commit suicide is to commit an evil against the state. To commit suicide is to treat the state you live in unjustly, to rob it of two types of property: 1) your future contributions and 2) your own self.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
Aurelius takes this even farther. It's not just your society that you harm when you commit a crime. No, the criminal has "made himself a kind of abscess on the universe."

But we can go farther still.

There is no victimless crime because whenever you commit a crime, you act against the eternal law of God. All crime is against the structure of reality itself, and thereby against God.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
I seem to have forgotten to share commentary from the wisest philosopher on this point. Let us heed the wisdom offered in Plato's Crito; Socrates finds himself wrongly sentenced to death, and while his friend Crito has come to break him out of prison, Socrates insists that to escape his unjust punishment would itself be an act of injustice; to violate Athens' judgement, even an incorrect one, would be a crime against the state, against the city, against the laws themselves:

SOCRATES: Then I state the next point, or rather I ask you: when one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?

CRITO: One should fulfill it.

SOCRATES: See what follows from this: if we leave here without the city’s permission, are we harming people whom we should least do harm to? And are we sticking to a just agreement, or not?

CRITO: I cannot answer your question, Socrates. I do not know.

SOCRATES: Look at it this way. If, as we were planning to run away from here, or whatever one should call it, the laws and the state came and confronted us and asked: “Tell me, Socrates, what are you intending to do? Do you not by this action you are attempting intend to destroy us, the laws, and indeed the whole city, as far as you are concerned? Or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals?” What shall we answer to this and other such arguments? For many things could be said, especially by an orator on behalf of this law we are destroying, which orders that the judgments of the courts shall be carried out. Shall we say in answer, “The city wronged me, and its decision was not right.” Shall we say that, or what?

CRITO: Yes, by Zeus, Socrates, that is our answer.

SOCRATES: Then what if the laws said: “Was that the agreement between us, Socrates, or was it to respect the judgments that the city came to?” And if we wondered at their words, they would perhaps add: “Socrates, do not wonder at what we say but answer, since you are accustomed to proceed by question and answer. Come now, what accusation do you bring against us and the city, that you should try to destroy us? Did we not, first, bring you to birth, and was it not through us that your father married your mother and begat you? Tell you, do you find anything to criticize in those of us who are concerned with marriage?” And I would say that I do not criticize them. “Or in those of us concerned with the nurture of babies and the education that you too received? Were those assigned to that subject not right to instruct your father to educate you in the arts and in physical culture?” And I would say that they were right. “Very well,” they would continue, “and after you were born and nurtured and educated, could you, in the first place, deny that you are our offspring and servant, both you and your forefathers? If that is so, do you think that we are on an equal footing as regards the right, and that whatever we do to you it is right for you to do to us? You were not on an equal footing with your father as regards the right, nor with your master if you had one, so as to retaliate for anything they did to you, to revile them if they reviled you, to beat them if they beat you, and so with many other things. Do you think you have this right to retaliation against your country and its laws? That if we undertake to destroy you and think it right to do so, you can undertake to destroy us, as far as you can, in return? And will you say that you are right to do so, you who truly care for virtue? Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father, and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your father’s? You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What shall we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?

CRITO: I think they do.

SOCRATES: “Reflect now, Socrates,” the laws might say, “that if what we say is true, you are not treating us rightly by planning to do what you are planning. We have given you birth, nurtured you, educated you; we have given you and all other citizens a share of all the good things we could. Even so, by giving every Athenian the opportunity, once arrived at voting age and having observed the affairs of the city and us the laws, we proclaim that if we do not please him, he can take his possessions and go wherever he pleases. Not one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him, if he is not satisfied with us or the city, if one of you wants to go and live in a colony or wants to go anywhere else, and keep his property. We say, however, that whoever of you remains, when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions. We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better. Yet we only propose things, we do not issue savage commands to do whatever we order; we give two alternatives, either to persuade us or to do what we say. He does neither. We do say that you too, Socrates, are open to those charges if you do what you have in mind; you would be among, not the least, but the most guilty of the Athenians.” And if I should say “Why so?” they might well be right to upbraid me and say that I am among the Athenians who most definitely came to that agreement with them. They might well say: “Socrates, we have convincing proofs that we and the city were congenial to you. You would not have dwelt here most consistently of all the Athenians if the city had not been exceedingly pleasing to you. You have never left the city, even to see a festival, nor for any other reason except military service; you have never gone to stay in any other city, as people do; you have had no desire to know another city or other laws; we and our city satisfied you.

“So decisively did you choose us and agree to be a citizen under us. Also, you have had children in this city, thus showing that it was congenial to you. Then at your trial you could have assessed your penalty at exile if you wished, and you are now attempting to do against the city’s wishes what you could then have done with her consent. Then you prided yourself that you did not resent death, but you chose, as you said, death in preference to exile. Now, however, those words do not make you ashamed, and you pay no heed to us, the laws, as you plan to destroy us, and you act like the meanest type of slave by trying to run away, contrary to your commitments and your agreement to live as a citizen under us. First then, answer us on this very point, whether we speak the truth when we say that you agreed, not only in words but by your deeds, to live in accordance with us.” What are we to say to that, Crito? Must we not agree?

CRITO: We must, Socrates.

SOCRATES: “Surely,” they might say, “you are breaking the commitments and agreements that you made with us without compulsion or deceit, and under no pressure of time for deliberation. You have had seventy years during which you could have gone away if you did not like us, and if you thought our agreements unjust. You did not choose to go to Sparta or to Crete, which you are always saying are well governed, nor to any other city, Greek or foreign.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
You have been away from Athens less than the lame or the blind or other handicapped people. It is clear that the city has been outstandingly more congenial to you than to other Athenians, and so have we, the laws, for what city can please without laws? Will you then not now stick to our agreements? You will, Socrates, if we can persuade you, and not make yourself a laughingstock by leaving the city.

“For consider what good you will do yourself or your friends by breaking our agreements and committing such a wrong. It is pretty obvious that your friends will themselves be in danger of exile, disfranchisement, and loss of property. As for yourself, if you go to one of the nearby cities—Thebes or Megara, both are well governed—you will arrive as an enemy to their government; all who care for their city will look on you with suspicion, as a destroyer of the laws. You will also strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you, for anyone who destroys the laws could easily be thought to corrupt the young and the ignorant. Or will you avoid cities that are well governed and men who are civilized? If you do this, will your life be worth living? Will you have social intercourse with them and not be ashamed to talk to them? And what will you say? The same as you did here, that virtue and justice are man’s most precious possession, along with lawful behavior and the laws? Do you not think that Socrates would appear to be an unseemly kind of person? One must think so. Or will you leave those places and go to Crito’s friends in Thessaly? There you will find the greatest license and disorder, and they may enjoy hearing from you how absurdly you escaped from prison in some disguise, in a leather jerkin or some other things in which escapees wrap themselves, thus altering your appearance. Will there be no one to say that you, likely to live but a short time more, were so greedy for life that you transgressed the most important laws? Possibly, Socrates, if you do not annoy anyone, but if you do, many disgraceful things will be said about you.

“You will spend your time ingratiating yourself with all men, and be at their beck and call. What will you do in Thessaly but feast, as if you had gone to a banquet in Thessaly? As for those conversations of yours about justice and the rest of virtue, where will they be? You say you want to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them. How so? Will you bring them up and educate them by taking them to Thessaly and making strangers of them, that they may enjoy that too? Or not so, but they will be better brought up and educated here, while you are alive, though absent? Yes, your friends will look after them. Will they look after them if you go and live in Thessaly, but not if you go away to the underworld? If those who profess themselves your friends are any good at all, one must assume that they will.

“Be persuaded by us who have brought you up, Socrates. Do not value either your children or your life or anything else more than goodness, in order that when you arrive in Hades you may have all this as your defense before the rulers there. If you do this deed, you will not think it better or more just or more pious here, nor will any one of your friends, nor will it be better for you when you arrive yonder. As it is, you depart, if you depart, after being wronged not by us, the laws, but by men; but if you depart after shamefully returning wrong for wrong and mistreatment for mistreatment, after breaking your agreements and commitments with us, after mistreating those you should mistreat least—yourself, your friends, your country and us—we shall be angry with you while you are still alive, and our brothers, the laws of the underworld, will not receive you kindly, knowing that you tried to destroy us as far as you could. Do not let Crito persuade you, rather than us, to do what he says.”
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
There is no such thing as a "victimless crime."
Crito, my dear friend, be assured that these are the words I seem to hear, as the Corybants seem to hear the music of their flutes, and the echo of these words resounds in me, and makes it impossible for me to hear anything else. As far as my present beliefs go, if you speak in opposition to them, you will speak in vain. However, if you think you can accomplish anything, speak.

CRITO: I have nothing to say, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Let it be then, Crito, and let us act in this way, since this is the way the god is leading us.
This is simply genius and something I've never seen except for up this way. Pulling the handle gets that cart through the snow easier than pushing it. We don't shop at Pat's often but their carts are simply amazing this time of year!!
Finally, something is tempting me to believe in the Stoic notion of "preferred indifferents."
Just accidentally disturbed a small hornet nest. Their attack didn't go very swimmingly.
'Bout to go kick out some squatters and have 'em over for pasties, eh.
Have said it before and I'll say it again: you shouldn't be able to quit a job just because you want to. The West has fallen. No serious civilization would allow no-fault quitting.
Forwarded from Smoke Pit V
One of my favorite historical episodes of America is the crossing of the Delaware to kill the Hessians in their beds on Christmas.

Turns out you can just do things, as a matter of fact.
Smoke Pit V
One of my favorite historical episodes of America is the crossing of the Delaware to kill the Hessians in their beds on Christmas. Turns out you can just do things, as a matter of fact.
One of the truisms of the world, and you can find this in basically any text on the question worth reading, in Plato and in the Bible, is that committing evil harms the actor more than it harms his victim.

I wonder how a country established on such a barbarous act might look 250 years after its inception.

What's that? "New Spiritual Pythons, plenty of them; enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud, loom huge and hideous out of the twilight Future on America," you say? Very curious. Thanks, Carlyle.
Fixed my PC. The regular posting can now continue. Telegram is dooooooooomed.
Due to a strong negative reaction against negative reacts, they have been turned back off. Bringing them back was incredibly unpopular, and I must apologize for the move that didn't respect the will of the people.
Seems about right to me. But it should be 51.9% because, unrounded, it's 51.851851851 &c.