| ▲ | somedude895 7 months ago |
| A Conflict of Visions is a good one. Thomas Sowell is a true intellectual. Sure, he has strong biases, but I believe those developed out of his intense study of the facts, rather than being implanted in him before he started thinking for himself, which is sadly the case for many so-called intellectuals nowadays. If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be? |
|
| ▲ | flanked-evergl 7 months ago | parent [-] |
| Heretics GK Chesterton. By far one of the best books I have ever read, and I have read it about 10 times by now. One gem from the first chapter: "When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed." |
| |
| ▲ | munksbeer 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | I can see English, but I can't actually understand what is being said. | | |
| ▲ | nataliste 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Liberals valued truth's scarcity, freeing debate to meet the market's high demand. Today, truth is cheapened; free speech is abundant but ignored. Once, orthodoxy restricted discussion, preserving its value; now, "good taste" silences it, rendering it worthless. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I've parsed it again a few times and I think you are actually wrong in your interpretation. It says the old liberals thought that by removing barriers to debate, they would uncover more truth. You've said the opposite, they valued the barriers. And now that anyone is free to debate whatever they want, universal truths, religion, etc, not many people are interested in doing so because it has become considered bad taste. That seems to be the gist of it. It is a mystery to me why smart people find it difficult to convey meaning in a form that simpler people can understand. |
|
| |
| ▲ | stvltvs 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is this a valid complaint? I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. I've participated in plenty of dorm room discussions and online debates about religion and the nature of things. The upshot seems to be that we're all free to come to our own conclusions, and given the inconclusive or unpersuasive arguments, we end up with idiosyncratic beliefs rather than orthodoxy. Is Chesterton just nostalgic for a mythical time when most people believed roughly the same things? | | |
| ▲ | flanked-evergl 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. If you, as a teacher, make some claims as to cosmic truth in Norway, you get fired. And a college dorm room is not the real world. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Could you give an example of a claim of cosmic truth that would get you fired? |
|
|
|
