Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

Subject: How to Disagree

Many excellent points, Brendan. [i've made a note of some of them to try to get back to later in my sequence of topics.]

,,,,,,,,

> I apologize for the nasty, sarcastic tone of my earlier remarks. [WSS]

["...If it does not yet occur to him that taking the lessons of an intensely mystical bag of warring sects who killed each other over Trinity, then please let him labour along in his intellectual rut. It is meaningless and pointless, but it keeps him off the streets.]

William, I didn't think things like the above are really 'nasty': the basic intent is to vehemently disagree and argue against -- not to destroy or humiliate. And withering sarcasm and humor can be effective, especially if you explain the reasons for your sarcastic disagreement -- as you subsequently did in post #48.

I try not to take umbrage at a well-written, sarcastic put-down like the above. A certain amount of 'snark' is a proper part of heated debate. ["Coates, do you think with that brain. Are you under medication?"] What I object to is people who snipe at you with personal attacks and don't have sufficient respect for the issues to offer reasons and detailed argument. They are launching personal insults or character assassination --- you are scum, an evader, dishonest, a "schoomarm", overbearing, etc., etc. By contrast, what you were doing [and what you often - not always! - do when you disagree] was a rather eloquent "put down" but it was (basically) a *reasoned disagreement*.

It was funny and well-written. And I didn't really take much offense at it. Nor should I. [Also, embedded in this other point you made in the same post, while exaggerated, has a grain of truth which quite important and of value: "Objectivish thought depends on schoolmarming, finger-pointing, denunciations, schisms, the Silent Treatment, exclusion, demonizing, and associated baggage." ]

I very seldom see it, but I actually sometimes if I present a dozen numbered points would yearn to see a systematic -- careful, thorough, attentive -- 12-point series of disagreements. Assuming it was actually well-done and on-point that would give me (and bystanders) the opportunity to learn one of two things: i) what was unconvincing, omitted, poorly articulated in the way I made my case; ii) where I was wrong or overlooked something.

William, I just want you to know that ii) actually happened. I think I was actually wrong about something once in 1988...(or was it 1902?) :- )

,,,,,,,,,,,

(By the way, this whole topic of how to disagree is an area where Oists fall down not just among themselves but in talking to people generally - Rand herself did this - and they impress or influence people a lot less often than they should...I've posted on this, so I will set it aside for now. Kelley called it judgmental moralizing. Others call it demonizing. Rand and her abusive, contemptuous, dismissive, insulting comment on "the libertarians" was just one example. And PS and LP were just following in her footsteps.)

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Inertia

"Overthrowing an older philosophical worldview or establishing a new one is..a major challenge due to the scope of the changes in thinking and action that must be conveyed, accepted, implemented." [Post #1]

Expanding on this and seeing where it leads:

Crucial to the possibility of substantial intellectual change is the issue of inertia. There is inertia due to age, inertia because of complexity, inertia of great effort, inertia of costs vs. benefits, and more. There is not much inertia that needs to be overcome to switch toothpaste or give the new restaurant down the street a try. There is more to radically change your diet or break an addiction or other deeply-seated habit.

A key identification of modern physics was the property of every body, every physical thing of inertia: "The..innate force of matter is a power of resisting by which every body..endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line" -- [isaac Newton -- his First Law of Motion]. What it takes to overcome inertia - either to get something moving in the first place (or to alter an already existing course) - is a big enough impulse, a strong enough force. Proportional in magnitude to that of the mass that needs to be moved.

How does inertia apply to the mind, not just to physical entities, to 'mass'. How great is the inertia of philosophical or religious worldviews? It is normally quite great. To change them is akin to changing a deep-seated habit. An alcoholic or a drug addict had reasons for adopting that pattern, it allowed him to cope with certain things. And, over time, it became a part of who he was, of his responses and attitudes, a part of his personality. So to change it you need a strong enough force to 'dynamite' it's way through attitudes, personality, behavior --- through many layers of psychology. And there can be withdrawal pains and discomforts with any change in deep aspects of who one is. Doesn't AA talk about needing to hit rock bottom and having nowhere else to go, before one has a force of motivation and realization to change?

And in the case of philosophy or religion, the worldviews are fundamental -- one's whole metaphysics, epistemology, ethics -- things that underlie who one is, how one looks at the world and other people and oneself in all sorts of ways.

Now, it's certainly true that there are people who can quit smoking on a dime or have a swift lightning bolt, remagnetizing all the filings, Road to Damascus, Reading Atlas Shrugged at seventeen concentrated "revelation" that changes them rapidly. And that is fully understood at once. And that sticks forever. But that is not the way to bet. That is not what happens normally. Most minds and behavior patterns have a lot of inertia with regard to fundamentals, to worldview. For one thing, they are not acquired all at once, but accrete slowly over time and thus require time to unravel or replace (or to create in the first place.) For another, they are integrated and "embedded" in all sorts of ways. For a third, they are often not consciously identified and it can be hard to uncover, challenge, replace such things.

(...At this point, one might ask, "Well, where is Phil going with this? Isn't this obvious and how does it connect back to the early Christians and how he started this thread? Is the schoolmarm having an aneurysm?" But if you bear with me, the virtue of fleshing this out and its connection to the topic will become clear...)

What this means is it requires a great deal to change, especially to deeply or even radically change, a sweeping worldview. For Paul and his co-workers to change the religious views of one man or a culture, for Objectivists to change the philosophy of one man or a culture, even for classical liberals to change the economic and 'individual rights' views of one man or a culture -- in each case great inertia akin to that of a very big rock or an elephant or the deep and wide roots of an oak tree stump is involved. You need a great deal of force when something is that heavy. You need to not underestimate the task. And, in this case, you may want to pick your targets. If your resources are limited, you may need to attack some targets but not others. If you don't have a steam shovel or any fuel, you might want to try a baby elephant, not a full grown one.

...And that's what the first Christians did so cleverly, whether by luck or by conscious intent. (And what Objectivists -- and perhaps classical liberals?, although I'm not as familiar with their trajectory -- have not always done with enough systematic thought)...

[to be continued]

[anthony]

I don't know how much can be learned from early Christianity to promulgate our philosophy - but it is interesting and informative to explore. Full marks for trying.

My small doubt is that Objectivism might be "a bridge too far", for the majority of people, the masses, actually.

Not that it's so difficult to grasp, or too 'elitist', but that it runs counter to too many people's fundamental belief system.

Therefore, (and especially without a mystical cult figure to attract one) most will automatically reject it.

I have the sense that Objectivism will arrive at its own critical mass, not long from now.

This is not like it was when we were young, and somebody tossed a book at us and said "read this!"

Now, everything is available on the Net, and the 'word' is getting out already. And you either have a predisposition to O'ism - or you don't - I believe. Few are simply 'converted'.

The great news is that one picks up echoes of O'ist political-economical theory wherever one is in the world, A tide seems to be rising in opposition to failed theories of the past, and the irrational actions, presently.

And so: my question finally is this - should not the energy be better spent at promoting Libertarianism, initially and primarily?

As a cohesive political and capitalist system? The ground-work for individual liberty is essential.

Secondarily, from those ranks will come many future Objectivists, I think.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

I don't know how much can be learned from early Christianity to promulgate our philosophy - but it is interesting and informative to explore. Full marks for trying.

My small doubt is that Objectivism might be "a bridge too far", for the majority of people, the masses, actually.

Not that it's so difficult to grasp, or too 'elitist', but that it runs counter to too many people's fundamental belief system.

Therefore, (and especially without a mystical cult figure to attract one) most will automatically reject it.

I have the sense that Objectivism will arrive at its own critical mass, not long from now.

This is not like it was when we were young, and somebody tossed a book at us and said "read this!"

Now, everything is available on the Net, and the 'word' is getting out already. And you either have a predisposition to O'ism - or you don't - I believe. Few are simply 'converted'.

The great news is that one picks up echoes of O'ist political-economical theory wherever one is in the world, A tide seems to be rising in opposition to failed theories of the past, and the irrational actions, presently.

And so: my question finally is this - should not the energy be better spent at promoting Libertarianism, initially and primarily?

As a cohesive political and capitalist system? The ground-work for individual liberty is essential.

Secondarily, from those ranks will come many future Objectivists, I think.

Tony

Rarely do I agree with everything written in a post, but I agree with this one.

O'ism will never be a mass philosophy. As the atheist Arthur Schopenhauer observed long ago, if a rational philosophy could promise an afterlife as a reward for belief, and if theology could not, then people would desert religion for philosophy en masse, without so much as a second thought. But this is not the way things are, so the appeal of a rational philosophy will always be very limited.

The foolish hope that O'ism, because it is "rational," might one day conquer the world, or even the United States, has generated some boneheaded strategies over the years. One such strategy, which I call the "Sand and Checkerboard" model, was presented in an early issue of Reason Magazine. The idea here is simple: If each of us converts two people to O'ism, and each of them converts two more, and each of them converts two more -- well, you get the idea. I don't recall the exact calculations, but this model tells us that we should have a world full of O'ists in a relatively short period of time.

Even if O'ism is condemned to a permanent minority status, this is not cause for pessimism. There are many examples throughout history of minority movements whose influence has been far greater than their numbers might suggest. The American abolition movement in antebellum America is a perfect example of this. In my various lectures and debates on strategy over the years, I always stressed the need for a "theory of leverage." This consists of figuring out how to exert the most influence with very limited resources, including a small minority among a large population.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

I think that instead of studying Christianity, it would be better to focus on how Kant tricked so many people into following him. As we all know, Kant was the most evil and influential man in mankind's history, and somehow -- no one has yet discovered how -- he managed to convert people to his evil ways without their knowing it, and in many cases he converted them despite the fact that his converts have stated that they were opposed to his ideas! That's right, evil people who explicitly say that they reject Kant's ideas were nevertheless somehow accepting and practicing his ideas even though they weren't! He caused Nazism, Communism, Modern Art, serial killers, shoplifting and all sorts of other bad things.

So, if we could figure out how he did it, then we could use the same methods to trick people into becoming good, and into accepting Objectivism! They'd be walking around promoting individualism and taking pride in themselves and their productivity, all the while claiming that they've never heard of Ayn Rand, or claiming that they reject everything she stood for.

One potential path that we might want to follow would be to study certain Objectivists' resistance to facts and reason. Whenever I run into Objectivists like, say, Phil or Newberry or Pigero, or some of the dozens of Objecti-hatchlings over at OO, and I see that the more that they're confronted with reality, the tighter they cling to their false beliefs, I have to ask myself, "How did Kant get to them? They're totally embarrassing themselves by acting so stubbornly and irrationally. How did Kant trick them into behaving so stupidly, and to do so in the name of Objectivism?!?!"

If we could harness that power, it would be awesome.

J

[Xray]

I have the sense that Objectivism will arrive at its own critical mass, not long from now.

This is not like it was when we were young, and somebody tossed a book at us and said "read this!"

Now, everything is available on the Net, and the 'word' is getting out already. And you either have a predisposition to O'ism - or you don't - I believe. Few are simply 'converted'.

The foolish hope that O'ism, because it is "rational," might one day conquer the world, or even the United States, has generated some boneheaded strategies over the years. One such strategy, which I call the "Sand and Checkerboard" model, was presented in an early issue of Reason Magazine. The idea here is simple: If each of us converts two people to O'ism, and each of them converts two more, and each of them converts two more -- well, you get the idea. I don't recall the exact calculations, but this model tells us that we should have a world full of O'ists in a relatively short period of time.

The very idea of 'conversion' contradicts individualism: for conversion has the connotation of missonary/ progadandistic efforts to sway others to a certain belief system.

So by using conversion tactics, one would get the very opposite (= uncriticial followers) of what Objecitivsm wants to achieve.

'Converting' people to rational thinking would be like using non-A to achieve A.

[George H. Smith]

I have the sense that Objectivism will arrive at its own critical mass, not long from now.

This is not like it was when we were young, and somebody tossed a book at us and said "read this!"

Now, everything is available on the Net, and the 'word' is getting out already. And you either have a predisposition to O'ism - or you don't - I believe. Few are simply 'converted'.

The very idea of 'conversion' contradicts individualism: for conversion has the connotation of missonary/ progadandistic efforts to sway others to a certain belief system.

So by using conversion tactics, one would get the very opposite (= uncriticial followers) of what Objecitivsm wants to achieve.

'Converting' people to rational thinking would be like using non-A to achieve A.

The word "convert" doesn't necessarily mean this. It can simply mean to persuade someone to a different point of view. There are rational and irrational methods of conversion.

I generally use the word to signify a significant change of belief, intellectual attitude, and/or perspective. If, for example, I were to persuade an O'ist that Kant was not the most evil man in the history of Western civilization, I would not normally say that I "converted" that person; I would say instead that I changed his mind about something. But if I were to persuade an O'ist that the Peikovian approach to history in general is thoroughly irrational, then I might say that I "converted" him to a fundamentally different way of looking at history.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I think that instead of studying Christianity, it would be better to focus on how Kant tricked so many people into following him. As we all know, Kant was the most evil and influential man in mankind's history, and somehow -- no one has yet discovered how -- he managed to convert people to his evil ways without their knowing it, and in many cases he converted them despite the fact that his converts have stated that they were opposed to his ideas! That's right, evil people who explicitly say that they reject Kant's ideas were nevertheless somehow accepting and practicing his ideas even though they weren't! He caused Nazism, Communism, Modern Art, serial killers, shoplifting and all sorts of other bad things.

So, if we could figure out how he did it, then we could use the same methods to trick people into becoming good, and into accepting Objectivism! They'd be walking around promoting individualism and taking pride in themselves and their productivity, all the while claiming that they've never heard of Ayn Rand, or claiming that they reject everything she stood for.

One potential path that we might want to follow would be to study certain Objectivists' resistance to facts and reason. Whenever I run into Objectivists like, say, Phil or Newberry or Pigero, or some of the dozens of Objecti-hatchlings over at OO, and I see that the more that they're confronted with reality, the tighter they cling to their false beliefs, I have to ask myself, "How did Kant get to them? They're totally embarrassing themselves by acting so stubbornly and irrationally. How did Kant trick them into behaving so stupidly, and to do so in the name of Objectivism?!?!"

If we could harness that power, it would be awesome.

J

Maybe this video contains a clue:

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The Brain was also interested in the lessons of history -- specifically, what he could learn in order to conquer the world.. This is very clever.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know how much can be learned from early Christianity to promulgate our philosophy - but it is interesting and informative to explore. Full marks for trying.

My small doubt is that Objectivism might be "a bridge too far", for the majority of people, the masses, actually.

Not that it's so difficult to grasp, or too 'elitist', but that it runs counter to too many people's fundamental belief system.

Therefore, (and especially without a mystical cult figure to attract one) most will automatically reject it.

I have the sense that Objectivism will arrive at its own critical mass, not long from now.

This is not like it was when we were young, and somebody tossed a book at us and said "read this!"

Now, everything is available on the Net, and the 'word' is getting out already. And you either have a predisposition to O'ism - or you don't - I believe. Few are simply 'converted'.

The great news is that one picks up echoes of O'ist political-economical theory wherever one is in the world, A tide seems to be rising in opposition to failed theories of the past, and the irrational actions, presently.

And so: my question finally is this - should not the energy be better spent at promoting Libertarianism, initially and primarily?

As a cohesive political and capitalist system? The ground-work for individual liberty is essential.

Secondarily, from those ranks will come many future Objectivists, I think.

Tony

Rarely do I agree with everything written in a post, but I agree with this one.

O'ism will never be a mass philosophy. As the atheist Arthur Schopenhauer observed long ago, if a rational philosophy could promise an afterlife as a reward for belief, and if theology could not, then people would desert religion for philosophy en masse, without so much as a second thought. But this is not the way things are, so the appeal of a rational philosophy will always be very limited.

The foolish hope that O'ism, because it is "rational," might one day conquer the world, or even the United States, has generated some boneheaded strategies over the years. One such strategy, which I call the "Sand and Checkerboard" model, was presented in an early issue of Reason Magazine. The idea here is simple: If each of us converts two people to O'ism, and each of them converts two more, and each of them converts two more -- well, you get the idea. I don't recall the exact calculations, but this model tells us that we should have a world full of O'ists in a relatively short period of time.

Even if O'ism is condemned to a permanent minority status, this is not cause for pessimism. There are many examples throughout history of minority movements whose influence has been far greater than their numbers might suggest. The American abolition movement in antebellum America is a perfect example of this. In my various lectures and debates on strategy over the years, I always stressed the need for a "theory of leverage." This consists of figuring out how to exert the most influence with very limited resources, including a small minority among a large population.

Ghs

I recently came to the conclusion, which I previously mentioned, that Rand made a critical mistake, apparently because of the creation of the Nathaniel Branden Institute (originally "Lectures") in that she and he focused on the philosophy in toto but centered on the ethics instead of individual rights and politics. Consequently all her natural allies, no matter what their implicit moral suasion, be they conservatives or libertarians--even some liberals--were blown off. If there had been a heavy rights'-individualism, free markets, critical thinking orientation instead of that horrible cult-like atmosphere much of the Objectivist Ethics is right there in the politics. She could have said in that context that she had a philosophy called Objectivism that was congruent with her own position, if anyone cared. Instead we got this crap about how dangerous Objectivism was if you were half-assed about it.

This didn't come clear to me until I started interacting with Shayne and thinking more about individual rights. When I was young I thought the morality of rational self interest was the most important thing. Today I understand that importance is in denying the holy grail of altruism for the moral justification of any tyranny, secular or religious. Reading Atlas Shrugged was enough to flush that out of the reader's mind--go have a ball, without guilt. Make your happiness. She has had millions of readers, few attended NBI.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Phil, thank you for the gracious reply. I think my points are made, so I will not belabour them. Indeed, I find the whole early period of Christian growth fascinating, and I admit to very patchy and inconsistent understanding of the history and import. So anyone who goes into the pit of history to bring up ore gets my thanks. I profit by the digging of others. (in this subject intersects a number of my longrunning interests, perhaps best summarized by the book Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Schermer)

I think a small morph/aside under the rubric Disagreement will also be very fruitful. I expect every last person on this site has an opinion worth examining. It is one of the central puzzles of Objectivish things, for me. And I was very much struck by the portions of Rand's second Donahue appearance, wherein she uttered her statements about 'disagreement.' At that point in her life and career, she was no longer interested in "intelligent" disagreement ...

Here is a topical video. This is from two days ago. Lebanese prime-time television top-rated interview show. One one side is a former Lebanese MP (moustache) who belongs to the Lebanese wing of the alBaath party and who is a strong supporter of President Assad of Syria. On the other side, a current MP, from the Future bloc of former prime minister Hariri. These two disagree over many things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49jKO4MxEAc

[George H. Smith]

Okay, back to more serious matters....

In considering the success of early Christianity, we need to take into account the determination and perseverance of people who believe they are doing God's work and who look forward to eternal bliss as their reward. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians (11:24-27), Paul wrote:

Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods [by Roman authorities]; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

How many O'ist types would be willing to endure similar hardships to spread the word? Would you, Phil?

Ghs

[caroljane]

I thought he said, "Listen you little shrimp, I had no need of that hypothesis.," you damn European revisionists changed the quote again!

Please do not bring the crustaceans into it.

Carol

not having a good day

[caroljane]

Okay, back to more serious matters....

In considering the success of early Christianity, we need to take into account the determination and perseverance of people who believe they are doing God's work and who look forward to eternal bliss as their reward. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians (11:24-27), Paul wrote:

Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods [by Roman authorities]; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

How many O'ist types would be willing to endure similar hardships to spread the word? Would you, Phil?

Ghs

This passage exemplifies one of the many aspects of this topic that fascinate me. What enables, what drives the evanglist to endure, to suffer, to find comfort and continue unto death? The ways in which the second generation of Christians, who never knew Jesus personally, used and adapted their individual psychology and all their talents and energies, into their epic enterprise, are endlessly discussable.

In my limited observation, Objectivists who "stay the course" and spread the word to the best of their abilities, do endure real hardships, many if not most of which they inflict on themselves. I know it is unlike me, but this comment is not meant to be sarcastic, ironic or even remotely funny. It is the simple truth of what I think.

[George H. Smith]

Here is a topical video. This is from two days ago. Lebanese prime-time television top-rated interview show. One one side is a former Lebanese MP (moustache) who belongs to the Lebanese wing of the alBaath party and who is a strong supporter of President Assad of Syria. On the other side, a current MP, from the Future bloc of former prime minister Hariri. These two disagree over many things. [video deleted]

"The bottom of my shoe is more honorable than you...."

"Eat shit. Shut your mouth."

"Someone like you eats shit, you Son of a Whore."

"Fuck your mother. Fuck your sister," etc. etc.

Hey, those guys belong on OL!

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> beaten with rods...shipwrecked...danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren...in hunger and thirst

> How many O'ist types would be willing to endure similar hardships to spread the word? Would you, Phil?

Yes.

I'd be willing to skip a second helping of dessert. Once a year. On Objectifast day.

[Philip Coates]

Seriously, though, that was a powerful and moving passage:

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera.

Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive. Reminded me of a snippet on the runway strip, when the plane carrying the Vietnam War prisoners who had been savagely tortured in POW camps came home after those long years of captivity. The senior officer, Jeremiah Denton, who had led their years-long resistance had a very short stoically euphemistic answer to the blizzard of questions asking for details: "We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances."

[caroljane]

Here is a topical video. This is from two days ago. Lebanese prime-time television top-rated interview show. One one side is a former Lebanese MP (moustache) who belongs to the Lebanese wing of the alBaath party and who is a strong supporter of President Assad of Syria. On the other side, a current MP, from the Future bloc of former prime minister Hariri. These two disagree over many things. [video deleted]

"The bottom of my shoe is more honorable than you...."

"Eat shit. Shut your mouth."

"Someone like you eats shit, you Son of a Whore."

"Fuck your mother. Fuck your sister," etc. etc.

Hey, those guys belong on OL!

Ghs

Love it. Those guys must have spent time in Toronto. I don't speak Fuckish of choice as you know, but I understand it (pretty easy, one word and a few modifiers with the odd preposition). Recently I witnessed a heated debate in the middle of the Danforth at rush hour,between two taxi drivers who obviously did not have a common language. It was so good I started to write it down as fast as I could.

D1: Fuck you you fucking fucker!

D2: Fuck your mother, my fucking (untranslatable, pointing at passenger door) you will fucking pay fucking crazy, stupid...

D1 Fucking everybody cant fucking drive idiot motherfucker fucking information fucking police

D2 (calming down a little) Fucking police will take you to fucking jail. Motherfucker.

D2 (not calming down) Taking you to fucking jail for fucking life

(exchange information with much bristling and squaring up)

D1: I am fucking you you fucker.

D2: No you are not fucking me. I am fucking you!

At this point they both noticed me recording their exchange and , turned their oratorical abilities in my direction. The police, who had been standing beside me for a while assessing the situation and stifling their chuckles or sighs with doughnuts, advanced upon them wearily.

[Jonathan]

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera.

Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive.

It's not always impressive. It's often pathetically quixotic.

J

[caroljane]

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera.

Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive.

It's not always impressive. It's often pathetically quixotic.

J

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera.

Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive.

It's not always impressive. It's often pathetically quixotic.

J

Pathos is inexpressibly powerful.

-Miguel de Cervantes

ex galley slave

[Jonathan]

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera.

Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive.

It's not always impressive. It's often pathetically quixotic.

J

Pathos is inexpressibly powerful.

-Miguel de Cervantes

ex galley slave

If by "impressive" Phil meant that the pathos of an unbending buffoon is aesthetically "inexpressibly powerful," then I wouldn't have a problem with his statement. It's just not what I took him to mean.

J

[anthony]

Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera. Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive.

It's not always impressive. It's often pathetically quixotic. J

Pathos is inexpressibly powerful. -Miguel de Cervantes ex galley slave

If by "impressive" Phil meant that the pathos of an unbending buffoon is aesthetically "inexpressibly powerful," then I wouldn't have a problem with his statement. It's just not what I took him to mean. J

Um, minor point - but tempered steel is made to bend. Best steel, and best kind of resolve, too.

[George H. Smith]

Seriously, though, that was a powerful and moving passage: Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera. Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive. Reminded me of a snippet on the runway strip, when the plane carrying the Vietnam War prisoners who had been savagely tortured in POW camps came home after those long years of captivity. The senior officer, Jeremiah Denton, who had led their years-long resistance had a very short stoically euphemistic answer to the blizzard of questions asking for details: "We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances."

In The Rise of Christianity (1984), W.H.C. Frend writes:

Paul's strength lay in an ability to dictate immensely powerful letters which could not fail to impress their recipients....His letters tell us us a great deal about the man. He was vigorous, direct, and confident, sometimes arrogant and self-centered. He wrote for the occasion as he felt, not in the carefully studied literary style of the Letter of Aristeas or the Letter to Diognetus, and he could be biting and sarcastic as well as humble and pleading; but he was always genuine and utterly devoted to the task in hand which he believed was entrusted to him personally by God. The letters to the Corinthians show him ranging from indignation and angry denunciation to personal reminiscence and judicial pronouncements and then -- at the end of I Corinthians -- poetry of great beauty.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Seriously, though, that was a powerful and moving passage: Someone who would not give up. Ad astra per aspera. Unbending resolve like tempered steel is always impressive. Reminded me of a snippet on the runway strip, when the plane carrying the Vietnam War prisoners who had been savagely tortured in POW camps came home after those long years of captivity. The senior officer, Jeremiah Denton, who had led their years-long resistance had a very short stoically euphemistic answer to the blizzard of questions asking for details: "We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances."

In The Rise of Christianity (1984), W.H.C. Frend writes:

Paul's strength lay in an ability to dictate immensely powerful letters which could not fail to impress their recipients....His letters tell us us a great deal about the man. He was vigorous, direct, and confident, sometimes arrogant and self-centered. He wrote for the occasion as he felt, not in the carefully studied literary style of the Letter of Aristeas or the Letter to Diognetus, and he could be biting and sarcastic as well as humble and pleading; but he was always genuine and utterly devoted to the task in hand which he believed was entrusted to him personally by God. The letters to the Corinthians show him ranging from indignation and angry denunciation to personal reminiscence and judicial pronouncements and then -- at the end of I Corinthians -- poetry of great beauty.

Ghs

For those OLers who have neglected their daily Bible readings, here is a famous passage from I Corinthians 13 to which Frend was doubtless referring:

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.³If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,^* but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant⁵or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;⁶it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.⁷It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.⁹For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;¹⁰but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.¹¹When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.¹²For now we see in a mirror, dimly,^* but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.¹³And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

In considering the success of early Christianity, we need to take into account the determination and perseverance of people who believe they are doing God's work and who look forward to eternal bliss as their reward.

This reminds me of the point I made earlier about Mormonism and Scientology being better references, since their histories are better recorded. Imagine if history were rewritten by either group, how much of the dirt would survive the revision?

Was the real St. Paul such a heroic figure? If he wasn’t, we sure wouldn’t know about it.