Some define liberalism as being founded on a belief in a ‘universal man’, some common essential which, unless obscured by its refusal, is present in all persons. On this ground, liberalism asserts, no actual difference is discernable between Englishmen, Pakistanis,
Parts One and Two laid out the usefulness of a metaphor for civilizations in history, the metric Scripture gives for understanding civilizations (I), and why several of the common genres of such metaphors are less than suited for purpose (II).
The Imperfections of the Competition As intimated in the first entry to this triple-feature, mankind has many, many metaphors to describe civilization. Coming up with one is a common part of promulgating a theory of history. Today, we’ll consider four
How do you conceive of a civilization or a society? When you discuss history, does a society rise and fall? Is it young or old, solar or lunar, a part of a season-cycle? How do you picture a society’s lifespan?
Last week covered the foundations of symbolism (symmetry, sameness, and difference), as well as the levels of intentional present in narrative uses of symbolism. This week I promised to discuss…. Analogy Analogy is symbolic, though it is not symbolism proper.
Symbolism is the domain of the weird and the wibbly, of the grandmasters and the buffoons. On the one hand, it seems a rich field, ripe for the author and reader to revel in. On the other, it seems a
The problem of evil is old and tired and jagged, the sort of thing philosophers regularly cut themselves on quite badly, then go on bleeding all over history. Then along comes an ordinary Christian and deals with it in practice,
Read Part I here. Judge Just Judge Just succeeds Judge Pragmatic and brings what he calls a ‘metaphysical’ approach. He holds the work of judging to be ultimately a moral endeavor, a work of conforming to “our moral heritage” (Delaney
The difference between an ‘originalist’ judge and a ‘living Constitution’ judge is significant. Conservatives laud the first (sometimes) and damn the second; liberals damn the first and (sometimes) laud the second. Delaney approaches the question of judicial philosophy more circumspectly
I watched a ten second clip in which a man was killed. Charlie Kirk opened his mouth to speak; the side of his neck exploded outwards; he fell to the ground. Some time later, he died, despite all efforts to