fundamental confusion between nationalism and nation state
The Left and a great array of poorly informed, big brains, including fossil media pundits, have
long confused nationalism with the nation state.
The Leftist dream of a centralised world government, a dream
that is shared by Stalin and Hitler . (Stalin later preferred socialism
in one country, as he appealed to nationalism in order to hold back
Hitler's national socialism.)
Great thinkers like Freud and Einstein and the Fabians dreamed
of world government. This is
a very foolish dream, it leads to a world where a lunatic like Kim Jong-il could end up ruling the world.
The jingoism of the likes of National Socialism is not an answer
to an elusive world peace, no more than are the mind control
and re-education camps of Mao Tse-tung, or Stalin; or even Jeremy Corbyn
and Barak Obama's versions International Socialism!
It is competition that forms some guard against socialist and
theocratic dictatorships.
Along with this error of thinking is the belief that because
the world benefits by international trade, and it does,
that the removal of borders 'should' follow.
A country can protect its weaker citizens by forms of wealth
transfers. It can even help other countries, to some extent, in
that manner. At the same time, social and economic competition helps discover what
works and what does not.
As the tired but accurate cliche has it, good fences make
good neighbours.
There is no ideal society. Different people want different things. Differences are provided by different societies and cultures.
One does not have to invade neighbours, but humans have yet
to remove the temptation. This is not an easy problem to solve. Many human problems are not easy to solve.
With an increasingly connected world, negotiation is more enabled
and thus misunderstandings can be lowered. However, moderation and balance are what drives human advances, not the extremism of the market fundamentalists, let alone
the shallow murderous cult of socialism. Both of these dream of
world domination.
related material
Citizenship
curriculum
Franchise by examination, education and intelligence
Reality, laying the foundations for sound education
Ends and means and the individual
‘Just war’
GDP 2: GDP
and other quality of life measurements
|
|
casuistry - the destruction of language for political ends, and the belief in dictionaries
- Wikipedia version:
- "Casuistry ( /kazjʊɪstri,-ʒj-/ ), or case-based reasoning, is a method in
applied ethics and jurisprudence, often characterised as a critique of
principle- or rule-based reasoning. The word "casuistry" is derived from the Latin casus (meaning "case").
"Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from particular instances and applying
these rules to new instances. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning
(alleging implicitly the inconsistent—or outright specious—misapplication of rule to instance), especially in relation
to moral questions (see sophistry).
"The agreed meaning of "casuistry" is in flux. The term can be usedeither to describe a presumably acceptable form of reasoning or a form of reasoning that is inherently unsound and deceptive. Most or all philosophical dictionaries list the neutral sense as the first or only definition. On the other hand, the Oxford English Dictionary states that the word "[o]ften (and perhaps originally) applied to a quibbling or evasive way of dealing with difficult cases of duty." Its textual references, except for certain technical usages, are consistently pejorative ("Casuistry?destroys by Distinctions and Exceptions, all Morality, and effaces the essential Difference between Right and Wrong"). Most online dictionaries list a pejorative meaning as the primary definition before a neutral one, though Merriam-Webster lists the neutral one first. In journalistic usage, the pejorative use is ubiquitous and examples of the neutral usage are not found."
—
"History
"Casuistry dates from Aristotle (384–322 BC), yet the zenith of casuistry was from 1550 to 1650, when the Society of Jesus used case-based reasoning, particularly in administering the Sacrament of Penance (or "confession"). The term casuistry quickly became pejorative with Blaise Pascal's attack on the misuse of casuistry. In Provincial Letters (1656–7) he scolded the Jesuits for using casuistic reasoning in confession to placate wealthy Church donors, while punishing poor penitents. Pascal charged that aristocratic penitents could confess their sins one day, re-commit the sin the next day, generously donate the following day, then return to re-confess their sins and only receive the lightest punishment; Pascal's criticisms darkened casuistry's reputation. It was not until publication of The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), by Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, that a revival of casuistry occurred. They argue that the abuse of casuistry is the problem, not casuistry per se (itself an example of casuistic reasoning). Properly used, casuistry is powerful reasoning. Jonsen and Toulmin offer casuistry in dissolving the contradictory tenets of moral absolutism and the common secular moral relativism: "the form of reasoning constitutive of classical casuistry is rhetorical reasoning". Moreover, the ethical philosophies of Utilitarianism (especially preference utilitarianism) and Pragmatism commonly are identified as greatly employing casuistic reasoning."
"The application of general principles of morality to definite and concrete cases of human activity, for the purpose, primarily, of determining what one ought to do, or ought not to do, or what one may do or leave undone as one pleases; and for the purpose, secondarily, of deciding whether and to what extent guilt or immunity from guilt follows on an action already posited. Being merely a science of application, casuistry must be based on the principles and established conclusions of moral theology and ethics. These normative sciences it presupposes; to them it is ancillary; and strictly speaking it is distinct from them. It does not define objective morality, nor the objective circumstances that modify morality, nor the psychological conditions that fix motive and consent; but, borrowing from the moralist the principles that determine these elements of a volitional act, its inquiry regards the extent of their presence or absence in a given case. Neither does it establish the existence of moral obligation; but, assuming the precepts of morality as already established, its only office is to determine the subjective morality of an individual act. In subordination to the sciences which it subserves, its sphere comprises the whole range of man's free activity. The decisions of the casuist are right or wrong, therefore, in so far as they are or are not in accord with a science of morality, which is itself a right interpretation of the natural or positive laws promulgated by the Supreme Legislator of the Universe. They are of no worth, when based on an arbitrary or purely self-sanctioned autonomous philosophy of conduct. Since the special function of casuistry is to determine practically and in the concrete the presence or absence of a definite moral obligation, it does not fall within its scope to pass judgment on what would be more advisable, or on what may be recommended as a counsel of perfection. It leaves these judgments to the sciences to which they belong, particularly to pastoral and ascetical theology. The prudent director of consciences, however, being more than a casuist, ought in giving advice to make use of these other sciences in so far as they are applicable. Should he fail to do so, the blame cannot be attributed to casuistry."
[Quoted from http://www.newadvent.org]
related material
Why Aristotelian logic does not work
The logic of ethics with commentary on the ethical teaching of Abelard le Pallet
‘Heresy’, authority, quarrels and words
|
