Amazon.com Widgets

Bill Drennen

Joined: Nov. 15, 2011

No bio


Most recent posts by Bill Drennen:     (See all of them)


No posts yet


Latest comments by Bill Drennen:     (See all of them)


Re: Love as the Task of Philosophy

Feb. 1 at 5:57pm | see this comment in context

 Samantha, very cool perspective indeed! At first I doubted your point but now I see! This "seeing" in love tangentially relates to something I've been thinking about ever since my homeschooled 7'th grader stated from her catechism that in heaven we will not know everything. This bothered me but I did not voice my dislike of this overly simplified statement but I've been thinking about growing in love and knowledge ever since. We may not ever know everything but certainly we will be progressing towards the infinite, sort of like a limit in calculus!

Of course, my daughter has not had limit theory and Scheler may be equally remote. I’ll have to think how to explain to her.

Re: Interfaith statement on marriage issued

Jan. 17 at 11:19am | see this comment in context

Torah Jew said:

Just as scientific theories do battle in trying to uncover the way the universe has been constructed, so too with any knowledge. When science is corrupted, it often happens because people try to artificially shut down alternative lines of enquiry.

There is an adage of our sages that those who live in the plains are strong, and those who live behind walls are weak. Certainly history has countless examples of this in reality.  If we are unafraid, then we can win. But when we try to construct walls, others sense weakness, and press their advantage

Shutting down a false line of inquiry is not artificial. Science is corrupted when false lines of enquiry are persuied and it is purified when true ones are found. A false line may lead to the discovery of the opposite in which case the false line is abandoned.

The truth does not care how it is arrived at and no extra points are given for the difficulty or length of the enquiry. My daughter can spend all night on a math problem and get the wrong answer or she can get it right in one second. Fear has no impact.

Re: Interfaith statement on marriage issued

Jan. 17 at 10:57am | see this comment in context

 

TorahJew said:

People are fickle because in our world they can be, and we have not successfully "sold" them a better alternative. Our challenge is in selling a moral life, not in mandating it by law.

While we do this we do not have the luxury of waiting till the effect happens while there are children at peril now. Without a law to protect them, the unjust laws now in place will allow them to be brought up severely handicapped. An other problem with your argument is that the government has not remained neutral but has already actively progressed down the path of changing marriage. Erase all those changes and maybe your argument would have more weight. The strongest government interest is with regards to the children. If it was still illegal for them to be adopted by gay couples then I'd feel a bit more patient.

Re: Interfaith statement on marriage issued

Jan. 17 at 10:40am | see this comment in context

 

2 problems with this approach:

First, even though the government never has been in the business to explicitly define marriage, it has indirectly affirmed the cultural understanding of marriage by the many laws that are in place which assume this definition.

The government has never needed to define water is for drinking because this is so obvious that it is taken for granted and then many other laws are put in place assuming this truth. Pure water laws, new construction regulations ect.

However, (and this raises the second point) the minute some crazed group starts to push for changing the public water works to using alcohol the government needs to be more explicit to protect the public. The society for free public alcohol takes the case to the courts and the courts have no basis to dismiss it because after all, where is the law that says it must be water? The congress then must act to pass this law which of course should be obvious but such is the state of our decay into ignorance that such an embarrassing law becomes necessary.

We are in exactly the same state of affairs with marriage.

Re: Interfaith statement on marriage issued

Jan. 16 at 5:56pm | see this comment in context

Are you saying that truth is not independent of our perception of it but somehow only emerges as we perceive it and decide what is true? Or are you saying that truth is best perceived when we look at all the options?

As for marriage, the truth of what it is and is not has been observed over thousands of years of human history. Shouldn’t we have learned this very basic thing by now? If not we are quite pathetic or if we feel we need to reconsider it I think it also sheds quite a embarrassing light on our fickleness!

Saying the government should not define marriage in my view is like saying the government should not dare to define that air is what we breathe and water is for drinking!

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: "Soft Addictions"
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Truth and mercy in human experience
  • By: Marie Meaney
  • Re: Becoming Who You Are, Even If You're Not Sure Who That Is
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: What Midlife Crisis is Really About
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: What Midlife Crisis is Really About
  • By: Marie Meaney
  • Re: What Midlife Crisis is Really About
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: What Midlife Crisis is Really About
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: What Midlife Crisis is Really About
  • By: Kate Whittaker Cousino
  • Re: Pitfalls of Asserting Gender Roles
  • By: Ian Skemp
  • Re: Pitfalls of Asserting Gender Roles
  • By: Ian Skemp

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures