How about my comparrison to Bush, do you think his faith is an emotional one, or is it somehow stage managed?

When I talk about the issue of marriage with my married friends we inevitably end by saying the same thing, the grass is always greener on the other side. Now I read from those quotes that old man Socrates was saying the same thing so long ago – I LOVE THAT! Or I’m freaked out by it, I don’t know.

That Kartika you wear around your neck sounds cool. Have you read Emerson’s essay on illusion, or shall I say his essay on “cut the bullshit?”

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/illusion.html

a couple of excerpts:

“Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood. All is riddle, and the key to a riddle is another riddle. There are as many pillows of illusion as flakes in a snow-storm. We wake from one dream into another dream.”

“Life is an ecstasy.”

Did Fr Phonsie Cullinan offer any empirically-derived evidence for his belief in ‘God’? Or did he utilize his personal charm in combination with the logical fallacies called “appeal to emotion” and “appeal to the people”?

What was his motivation? Was he interested in shaming skeptics of his beliefs? For the convenience of not having to defend them rationally?

Thank you.

From Montaigne Among the Moderns” by Dudley M. Marchi

[Montaigne believed] ….”the skeptical temperment should be maintained only temporarily towards the formulation of solid judgements [ quoting Montaigne] ‘Every superior mind will pass through this domain of equilibration’, ( Montaigne, IV, 171- emphasis added) Emerson’s casualness toward his appropration of Montaigne is thus related to Montaigne’s attitude toward his own auctoritates. Emerson relied on Montaigne but only to help him arrive at his own intellectual independence…..”

So skepticim is an essential tool to keep us from making judgements so solid that they block our vision, no longer keep us fresh with the present.

Emerson’s essay Montaigne, or The Skeptic is here:

http://www.emersoncentral.com/montaigne.htm

(quotes from the above)

“But I see plainly, he [the skeptic] says, that I cannot see. I know that human strength is not in extremes, but in avoiding extremes. I, at least, will shun the weakness of philosophizing beyond my depth. What is the use of pretending to powers we have not? What is the use of pretending to assurances we have not, respecting the other life? Why exaggerate the power of virtue? Why be an angel before your time? These strings, wound up too high, will snap. If there is a wish for immortality, and no evidence, why not say just that? If there are conflicting evidences, why not state them? If there is not ground for a candid thinker to make up his mind, yea or nay,- why not suspend the judgment? I weary of these dogmatizers. I tire of these hacks of routine, who deny the dogmas. I neither affirm nor deny. I stand here to try the case. I am here to consider, skopein, to consider how it is. I will try to keep the balance true. Of what use to take the chair and glibly rattle off theories of society, religion and nature, when I know that practical objections lie in the way, insurmountable by me and by my mates? Why so talkative in public, when each of my neighbors can pin me to my seat by arguments I cannot refute? Why pretend that life is so simple a game, when we know how subtle and elusive the Proteus*(28) is? Why think to shut up all things in your narrow coop, when we know there are not one or two only, but ten, twenty, a thousand things, and unlike? Why fancy that you have all the truth in your keeping? There is much to say on all sides.”

This from Emerson to Nother:

“Who shall forbid a wise skepticism, seeing that there is no practical question on which any thing more than an approximate solution can be had? Is not marriage an open question, when it is alleged, from the beginning of the world, that such as are in the institution wish to get out, and such as are out wish to get in? And the reply of Socrates, to him who asked whether he should choose a wife, still remains reasonable, that “whether he should choose one or not, he would repent it.”

I have read that one of the reasons that Bush was so popular or got elected was that people warmed to his apparently simple strength, his belief in God. This is very powerful, and it should be considered. They wrote that people will warm to this simple strength or at least the appearance of strength and the associated leadership. Now I have no truck in Bush, and am only dabbling again in religion. I am not even going to start listing why… But I was fascinated by this overall idea.

And then I saw it in action, I was watching the late late show one night

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/20060512.html (an Irish LONG running TV show) and Michael Baigent a Dan brown apologist was on to debate (read.. publicise) the DAVINCI CODE, and on queue the RC church rolled out some theologians to counterpoint the facts. Anyway a funny thing happened that night and one of he theologians was delayed at the airport or something, and in his place Fr Phonsie Cullinan, a hip sort of college/university priest took his place. Well in my opinion Fr. Cullinane stole the show, a simple man with very strong beliefs just stood up and said ‘I love my God and I don’t like the way you are talking about him’ The argument might sound childish but believe me it was stunning to see, there was no logical argument or rational one, just I love my God and you are saying bad things about him.

I was impressed and though I dislike Bush – I got it,

See in this, the information age, people are no longer AS impressed with quotations and research and scripture. There is something very appealing in somebody being brave enough to stand up and say, this is what I believe……

(Thanks for putting up with me…)