Thursday, July 14, 2011

FLG's Sorry

...but did Withywindle just accuse him of believing the eschaton can be immanentized?

Because that's 1) a huge misreading of FLG's stance and 2) crazy talk.

7 comments:

Withywindle said...

You're the one identifying the eternal with the long-term, Gnostic Lad ...

FLG said...

Withy:

There's Plato's Forms. And for the purposes of this argument, let's just say those are Aristotle's as well. Augustine then replaced Plato's Good with God.

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that Voegelin's issue with the Forms doesn't arise with Augustine. Augustine had the City of God and the City of Man. It was Joachim of Fiore that caused the problem.

Plato's Forms are eternal, but we exist in the world of becoming, not being. So, I think I'm in the clear here.

Withywindle said...

"Therefore, eternity is the fullest realization of the long-term."

How is this not a conflation of two worlds? This seems obvious to me, and I don't know how to say this without just repeating what I've already said.

FLG said...

Oh, okay. I get where you are going. And it's probably due to poor word choice.

So, let me put it this way:
Short-term = liberal.
Long-term = conservative.
Basing one's analysis on eternal, universal, and unchanging truths is the most conservative of all.

Withywindle said...

Noo!

More anon.

Withywindle said...

"Let's not spend the kitty, Paul," isn't an Eternal Truth. It's a maxim learned from experience--that while we can't know absolutely what will happen at all times and all places if we spend the kitty, it tends--yes, in the long run--to have bad effects on our prosperity. But it aims solely towards preserving/increasing our wealth--a transitory goal, aimed at the transitory world. Eternal truths are a different category--"Don't kill, no matter what."

Now, there are more sorts of conservatives than are dreamt of in your time-frameworks, but the Burkean framework is usually to acknowledge eternal verities set by God, but not to try to enact any ourselves--to follow His strictures, but to act in things of this world based on experience, tradition, etc. The long-term doesn't bleed into the eternal; and to try to approximate the eternal with reference to the long term isn't conservative, but revolutionary--whether it's communist fundamentalism or free-market fundamentalism or any categorical imperative applied to the world.

I know I'm repeating myself. Is this any clearer?

william randolph brafford said...

For the record, I'm with Withywindle. There are, at the very reductive least, two questions here. First, what kind of society do we want? Answer this question with reference to whatever eternal principles you can find. Second, how quickly can we get there? And this is where time horizons would come into play.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.