Geoff's Miscellany

Identity politics are a game that can probably only be eschewed by the people who are going to lose.

Pointing out that identity politics is unfair and unreasonable to the people who play/live by those rules just means that they automatically win.

An example of this would be expecting parent not to prefer their child over other children in parent teacher conferences or school administrative meetings. People side with the group they identify with and maybe they're obligated to do so (maybe not) absent violations of truth, goodness, and beauty. But it seems that many of the Americans who reject identity politics as tool for political power or ethical reasoning still watch various versions of sports and have deep emotional attachments to those teams. They also tend to show a lot of loyalty to their alma mater.

It's a pretty great tweet.

Epictetus, the former slave turned stoic philosopher, made an eccentric argument for God’s providence in the smallest of human affairs. He argues by reducing to absurdity, as far as he can manage, four the five following views:

1. There is no god.
2. There is a god who is unconcerned for the cosmos.
3. There is a god who cares for the heavenly sphere only.
4. There is a god who cares for the general affairs on earth, not the details.
5. There is a god who cares for the affairs of men.

“Concerning gods, there are first those who say there is no divinity. Secondly, that there is but he is lazy (inactive) and unconcerned; and he makes no plans concerning anything. Thirdly, there are those who say that he exists and makes plans, rather only for the great and heavenly things, but for those of earth, nothing. Fourthly, there are those who say he makes plans for things upon the earth and the things of humanity, but in general and not for each one. Fifthly, there are those like Odysseus and Socrates who say, “Whither I move, I escape not your notice.” 

I've never watched the video, this is best played in the background.

The site will be down for a couple days/weeks while I solve some problems on it.

Thanks for reading.

What is virtue signalling?

Virtue signalling is "the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person's standing within a social group." Jesus, while not using the terminology, definitely addresses the concept.

Good?

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Christians are called upon by God to share the Christian gospel with others in order to help them become Christians.

One of the ways Christians try to evangelize (help non-Christians believe the gospel) is to help them see how wretched they really are so that they might see their need for Jesus.

Others try to help people see their philosophical need for a source or ground of absolute truth. This can be done using various methods.

Okay, so this post is kinda crazy. But here goes.

My whole life, except for one summer when I was very poor in 2006 or so, I've easily sunburned and so avoided the outdoors like crazy unless I was covered in sunscreen. At one point, I when I was a lawn-guy, I gave up entirely on sunscreen and just wore breathable slacks, long-sleeve shirts, and fishing hats to mow (this is smart by the way, I was in the sun for like 7-10 hours a day).

Never compromise on love. It’s the only thing that isn’t bullshit.

Chateau Heartiste

The quote above is from the now-defunct blog Chateau Heartiste. It was mostly about how to get laid. As distasteful as that is, there are lots of magazines, books (ancient and modern), seminars, and poems about this. I found it in like 2008 when thinking about existentialism and love and doing some google searches. Since then, I rediscovered the site while working as a research assistant on a project examining 3rd wave feminism. The chateau, due to the author's preference for spending private time with the fairer sex, had discovered the ugly underbelly of a feminist society. And as a near-nihilist (he wasn't totally, see the above quote), he managed to view the sociology of sexuality from a perspective geared almost entirely toward cause and effect. His insights were eloquently and inappropriately put, but they were accurate frequently. All of that is to say, his posts over the years gave modern vendors of BS several reasons to suspend his blog. But it wasn't until he posted the what you find below, that his blog was taken from him: