Mark Shiffman vs. Cartesian Gnosticism

I’ve read First Things for years, but somehow I missed Mark Shiffman's brilliant 2015 takedown of transhumanism “Humanity 4.5”. The essay aims particularly at transhumanist Steve Fuller, but is strong and concise enough to be considered almost a manifesto.

For decades, even since high school in the 1980s, I've been deeply suspicious of our culture's tendency to see science and technology as means of transcendence. For many years, not surprisingly, I was unable to articulate my unease. (If I learned anything in my twenties, it was how deeply all of us are enculturated, virtually incapable of thinking outside the patterns set in us.) Into adulthood I kept following that unease, always remaining something of a half-Luddite. For as long as I can remember, I've recoiled at the sight of gadgets and new technologies those around me flock to. I don't regret this, because now I see more clearly the demons I previously only suspected.

What's great about Shiffman's essay is that it puts a lot of my half-formulated inklings (re: Nominalism/Descartes/techno-gnosticism) into nutshell form. Thus, again: something like a manifesto.

Interesting to contemplate is the question of why some of us feel repulsed by the technological vision, almost as a matter of disposition, while others (most of my contemporaries) embrace it wholeheartedly. If I'm flattering myself, I might attribute it to a certain depth, a better bullshit detection system, whatever. But really, it may largely be just temperamental. Or is it perhaps, as I sometimes think, a gift of grace, a whispering of sorts, to steer me clear?

As I'm no genius, it must be either temperament or grace. Which then?

E.M.

Kudos to Rod Dreher for posting on Shiffman's piece at TAC.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

我們買個罪犯

家裡太安靜，太乾淨，很無聊，我太太同意。我們去買個罪犯，真正的罪犯，跟我們一起住。罪犯有點貴，真正的罪犯，但我們還是買回家。

他很吵，一直吵：一樓吵，二樓吵。晚餐時他都大談白目的計畫。我們覺得很好玩。衣服丟在這裡，煙蒂丟在那裡。有一天我的皮夾不見: 非常有趣。

過 了一個月我們開始覺得麻煩：啤酒罐在這裡，衣服丟在那裡。鄰居一直抱怨，警察每天來問。我們決定把罪犯退回。不過店家不願意退錢；我們只能換別的罪犯。店 裡有一個很矮的，看起來很聰明的罪犯；有一個禿頭打著太極拳的罪犯，也有一個穿深藍色睡衣，慢慢地搖晃身體的女罪犯。我想我們的罪犯比那三個好，所以我們 決定不要退，就帶他回家。

可是我們的罪犯不高興。他好像有一點憂鬱，知道我們幾乎把他退貨。他開始花很多時間在外面。我們聽說他開始學設計。過了三個月他設計的一個電燈得了獎。有人給他錢去歐洲。在瑞士他設計的肥皂盒也得了獎。他回家後變了一個人，有一點冷冷的。他穿的衣服都很時髦，他不喝啤酒，停止抽煙，吃晚餐時他幾乎都不說話；我問他問題，他用法文回答！就對他吼：「嘿!你覺得我們會花四萬塊買這種無聊的罪犯嗎?」

隔天早上我們發現他離開了。桌子上有四塊和三個他得獎的肥皂盒，還有一封信。他寫說他要搬去和他的比利時男友住，並且和我們保持聯絡。他沒有給地址。

半年過了。他都沒有聯絡。我查網路「比利時」和「設計」，可是找不到他了。 我太太說他可能已經改名，但我不這麼覺得。

家𥚃又太安靜。我們考慮訂機票去比利時。

枚德林

新書《白痴有限公司》: 有罪犯、犀牛、蝙蝠、obasans 、海豚、真英雄、台北秘史 and more. 你可以在台灣買到:



at Books.com

at 誠品

at 金石堂

Like 我的FB粉絲頁: Eric Mader 枚德林

Kafka’s Joke Book, Bis.

Three guys go into a bar, an Italian, a Pole, and an American.
     Such courage is forever beyond my reach.

Everyone says that in life you must follow your dreams. Once I dreamt I was at the dinner table and I spilled some tea. Father went to get the big fabric shears and began to cut off my fingers, one by one. This is the dream I follow.

How many of me would it take to change a light bulb?
     Even if I had that many, I would not change it today.

If only our ears were keener we could hear the butterflies howling in terror at the approaching night.

My fortune cookie: “As you read this, the tumor grows.”

Three blondes are arguing about which comes first, February or March. The first blonde says.…
     But I didn’t hear what she said. When they saw me at the next table, they took up their drinks and moved to the other side of the cafe.

Why did the chicken cross the road?
     The road was wide; it stretched before him like a vast plain. The sun beat down on his feathers, which began to shed from exhaustion and hunger. Eventually he forgot that it was a road he was crossing, or why he had set out on this journey. Was it a journey? He looked down at his feet—gnarled, alien appendages. What did they have to do with him?

Yesterday I told Max that if he didn’t burn my manuscripts I would return to haunt him. “All the more reason to burn them,” he said. “Having you next to me as a ghost will be just like old times.”

“Knock, knock.”
     “Who’s there?”

[To audience:] Sometimes you laugh at my jokes, you guffaw, you slap your sides. And here I stand in infinite sorrow.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Which will only give them the opportunity to demonstrate all the ways they can beat you.

For John McNamee.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

Facebook page: Eric Mader 枚德林

Rod Dreher and Natural Law: Bathwater and Baby?

Perhaps a couple times a year Rod Dreher, whose work I admire, manages to weigh in on the “uselessness” of the natural law tradition. It’s disappointing to watch, and this time, quoting a frequent gay commenter on his blog, “Matt in VA”, I think Dreher has gone overboard in his dismissiveness.

Dreher frequently says he personally “likes” natural law arguments, but then acknowledges he isn’t very deeply read in the tradition, and the result is he posts things under titles like this:



The thread that followed the piece wasn’t all that enlightening in rejoinder either. I’m not very versed in natural law theory myself, but still, I know enough to recognize hamminess and flailing when I see it. I don’t think 80% of the commenters have background enough to make the arguments they make. (NB: I do think Dreher's blog often draws sharp commenters.)

But how should the Christian writer, though he may not himself be a serious student of natural law, write about the place of natural law philosophy in the culture and the Church? This is my main concern. I think Dreher is off track.

Below are my own comments on the post, condensed.

Eric Mader writes:

“Style is everything.”

I say: “Meh”. Matt in VA is just making an argument Nietzsche made much better. It’s the same argument that, via French post-structuralism, underpins the whole postmodern thrust that birthed our current hyper-individualist hordes, especially the SJW hordes. Yes, I agree with Matt to the extent that he’s making a diagnosis of sorts, but don’t at all agree with his stance that “the law is dead”. It remains alive as long as it is seriously pursued and articulated by only a few. We should support those few, Rod; we should do what we can to convey their arguments, and the need for philosophy generally, whenever we have the chance.

What’s more, the fact that here again, Rod, you underline 1) the intellectual difficulty of getting into the natural law tradition and 2) that people are no longer disposed to accept it--pointing to these almost as arguments--I have to say: “So what?” Are these valid grounds to post yet another piece throwing water on the remaining flames of the natural law tradition? Because that’s what you’re basically doing by featuring Matt/Nietzsche in this way.

Every third piece you’ve written over the years--specifically those stressing the deep wrongness of most LGBTQwerty initiatives--was ultimately premised on natural law arguments. You cannot argue that a boy is a boy because he was born as such, you cannot argue that boy is a coherent essence, without the natural law. Why is it a surprise to you that such arguments aren’t accepted by a culture whose intellectual being is a mash-up of cheap scientism, Lady Gaga aesthetics and a religion of the Desiring Self?

Matt thinks Scalia matters because of his verbal wit. That, I’d say, is a minority position. Scalia’s verbal wit is just an added feature on the man’s a serious intellect, without which Scalia might as well be Stephen Colbert--this time lucky enough to get on the Supreme Court.

If this culture is indifferent to natural law arguments because of 1) their difficulty and because 2) Lady Gaga wouldn’t agree, do you think they’re more open to arguments from Scripture? Maybe they’re a little more open, those who have been touched by grace, or those who have been horrified by the void that now gapes, but that doesn’t necessitate throwing in the towel on natural law.

The only element in this piece I can get firmly behind is the call for artists to allow the insights of natural law to guide their work. Flannery O’Connor, though not even a very serious reader of Thomism, was on the right track.

Commenter @RealAlan gets it:

*If* the new Leftist order collapses, people are going to look back and ask “What went wrong?” Natural Law will be there to answer that question. Society owes a great debt to folks like Professor George and the other exponents of the “new” Natural Law. When Western Civilization regains its senses, an established philosophical tradition will be there to be recovered.

And so, if a Christian public intellectual is going to blog on natural law, how about taking a more helpful tack? Thus: The natural law tradition is hard, it requires a conceptual apparatus that is somewhat counter-intuitive for us moderns, but natural law arguments have convinced some of the most brilliant minds in our history and remain vital and necessary. So go hit the books, why not. Start with Edward Feser’s short volume Aquinas (A Beginner’s Guide), and God speed.

Just sayin’.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

西門町

西門町都是年輕人和怪老頭。年輕人走來走去，怪老頭盯著他們想怪老頭的東西。我很少去西門町。我上次去西門町要喝一杯咖啡，發現喜歡的咖啡店已經不見。我坐在一個板凳上休息，抽了一根雪茄看人。忽然明白：「該死，我變成一個怪老頭。」

***

《白痴有限公司》: 有犀牛、蝙蝠、obasans 、海豚、真英雄、台北秘史 and more. 你可以在台灣買到:



at Books.com

at 誠品

at 金石堂

Like 我的FB粉絲頁: Eric Mader 枚德林

嘿! 去台中念大學的台北男生—要小心! 叔叔警告 (English)

Dear Howard:

Maybe you think it’s a little strange to get a letter from your Uncle Tony. But I’m writing to give you some important advice. You probably know that like you I finished high school here in Taipei, then went to university in Taichung. But you don’t know some of the things that happened to me there, and I don’t want the same to happen to you.

When I arrived in Taichung, 18 years old, everything was new. I was ready to explore, ready for adventure. You’ll feel the same way when you start school. But you need to remember that Taipei and Taichung are different.

First, do not swear or be impolite to the local citizens, especially the ones who look like gangsters. In fact don’t be impolite to ANYONE in Taichung, because many people who don’t look like gangsters sometimes have gangster relatives.

Second, do not go to the pub near the KFC near your university. The girls there are ugly and the drinks are too expensive. If you do go to pubs, do not end up in bed with every girl you meet. This is very serious. A lot of Taichung girls have gangster boyfriends, and the gangsters are always watching them. You know how I'm missing one finger on my left hand, and how everyone says it’s because of a motorcycle accident? Well, it is not because of a motorcycle accident. And even after I lost that finger, I still didn’t learn my lesson. I just went to another part of town and other pubs. In one of those pubs, a really adorable bar girl seduced me. Her name was Carrie.

“Tell me the truth—do you have a gangster boyfriend?” I asked her.

She promised and promised that she didn’t. So I went to her little apartment with her. It was a really nice apartment. And then I went again, many times. Well, she wasn’t lying that she didn’t have a gangster boyfriend. But what she didn't tell me was that she was an important gangster’s daughter.

What could I do? I thought that if I met the family and tried to convince them I was honest, things might go alright. Unfortunately, the next day after I left campus, two guys came up to me and smashed me up with a bat. You know how my right eye is a little funny, and that scar next to it, and how everyone says it’s because of "the motorcycle accident"? Well, it’s not.

But the truth is I STILL didn’t learn my lesson. I just decided to start chasing girls in other places, like at my school or at night markets. And I had many one-night stands. A lot. But let me tell you, there are disadvantages to having too many one-night stands. One is that if you don’t prudently use some security, I mean a condom, you might end up getting girls pregnant. Did you ever wonder why you have five cousins, Howard? Your aunt is a very understanding woman. I am lucky I met her.

So these are some things I hope you remember. But maybe I'm writing too much. You probably won’t get in as much trouble as I did, because you are short. Taichung girls don’t like short guys so much.

But also, when you go out in Taichung, always remember to lock your door. Check twice. And make sure your roommate follows the same rule. I lost a computer and my Japanese DVD collection because I didn’t lock my door.

I will say one more thing before ending this letter. One of my classmates, also from Taipei, decided that the best way to avoid trouble with gangsters in Taichung but also be able to chase hot girls in pubs was to just join the gangsters. He thought it was fun. He even got to do shooting practice with them. But where is that friend now, Howard? Can you guess? You know those cement tetrapods they use on the shoreline to keep the waves from eroding the coast? My friend is in one of those, somewhere south of Ilan. So unless you want to end up being a tetrapod, never join with the gangsters there.

Keep your clothes clean, brush your teeth every day, and study well, even for classes you hate. When I had a class I didn’t like, I didn’t study for it, and it took me five years to graduate. Don’t make the same mistake. Call your parents at least twice a week or they’ll worry about you. Also: Don’t tell them I sent you this letter about Taichung, or they’ll worry about you even more, and they will yell at me too.

In fact, don’t tell anyone about this letter, okay? It’s just between us.

Best Wishes, 



Uncle Tony
06/28/18

[Compiled from compositions written by Howard’s classmates in my Friday class.]

Tetrapods: Don't end up in one
More...


English:

Check out Idiocy, Ltd. at Amazon. Dryest humor in the west.

中文:

《白痴有限公司》: 有犀牛、蝙蝠、obasans 、海豚、真英雄、台北秘史 and more. 你可以在台灣買到:

at Books.com

at 誠品

at 金石堂

Like my Facebook author page: Eric Mader 枚德林