Big Words

I like words. I like big words. They tip me off. I can tell a man's point of view by the words he writes or says. I read the first part of Clash of Orthodoxies by Robert George last night. It has lots of big words.

I was about to do an entire post in monosyllables, but I found that the ensuing boredom and frustration were too much. Let's just say that Clash of Orthodoxies is a good read for what it is, which is a very high level discussion of the philosophy and logic behind the dominant orthodoxies, which Prof. George characterizes as secular orthodoxy on the one hand, and Judeo-Christian orthodoxies on the other. I note here that these latter are not religious orthodoxies in that they represent the rigorous views of one religion, but rather the "traditional understanding of human nature, human sexuality, and human decency." In other words, (gasp!) conservatism, a word he has yet to use, and I'm deep into Chapter 2 (page 44, if you must know.)

I will write more about this later, but you all know me: mostly, I can't stand philosophy. My mind is too impatient. I read too slowly. My mother was frightened by a first edition of Das Kapital when she was pregnant with me. I don't know. I'm beginning to realize, however, that my long-standing distaste for that discipline has much to do with being exposed to lots of ideologically-driven thought games being passed off as political theory or philosophy. Intellectual poseurs and tenured profs who justify their existence by fantasizing about the way things should be, and who generally and with considerable abandon, ignore the evidence of their own eyes and the laws of physics. At least when Plato put people in a cave, it was a contrivance that was self-acknowleged and purposeful for the development of his discourse. Anyway, I'm holding my nose and reading this because I know it's good for me. Not that I disagree with Prof. George: I completely agree with him. It's just that this is hard. About mid way through the first chapter, I thought that things would go faster if I made a game out of how many times he used the word "presupposition." Of course, the game I had in mind was a drinking game and I had to rule that out because I only have two cases of Spaten Optimatur in the house (incredibly, it's on sale for $11.99 at Central, so at least in theory I could afford the amount of beer needed to get through the first chapter, but other considerations are obviously at play here.) Also, I had to admit that while the Spaten Optimatur mellows me out to the point where I don't mind reading about the secularist orthodoxy of mind/body duelism, it does nothing to enhance my comprehension of:

No one can rationally deny free choice, or claim as illusory our ordinary experience of freely choosing, without presupposing the possibility of free choice. To deny free choice is to claim that it is more rational to believe tht there is no free choice than to believe that there is. But this, in turn, presupposes that one can identify norms of rationality and really choose to conform one's beliefs to those norms. It presupposes that we are free to affirm the truth or falsity of a proposition, our desires or emotions or preferences to the contrary notwithstanding.

That's three beers and a notwithstanding chaser. Hic. I think Lucille Ball did this with VitaMeataVegaMin.

Anyway, I read a chapter and then give vent my little cri du coeur:

I am not an intellectual! I am just a housewife and the best blogger in Hays County, Texas!