Topic: Americans are inexplicable

[Papist]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

[Iconodule]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

Exhibit A.

[Papist]

On a personal note, My anscestors came here from Europe as Spanish colonials. They lived in this area of the country (what is now New Mexico) ever since it was part of Mexico. Looking at the relative state of Mexico vs. the United States, I am greatful to God that New Mexico was incoorperated into the Union. I do love my country, because of what it has provided for me  and I am greatful to God for his providence in allowing me to be part of such a free and prosperous nation.

And yes, even though I am both hispanic and a teacher, I am one of those evil gun tottin', God fearing, american loving conservatives.

[Papist]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

Exhibit A.

most ridiculous post of the month nomination^
BTW, From the inside, all of those  outside of the USA who seem to hate American exceptionalism, appear to be suffering from little man syndrome.

[Papist]

For you Iconodule.

[Alpo]

Are you just living in Finland or are you an ethnic Finn?  The reason I ask is because from my understanding of Scandinavian history, Finns and other Scandinavians have always been influenced by egalitarianism which is different from communism.
So what the Scandinavians call socialism is different from the dictatorship of communism.

I don't know whether there is such thing as ethnic Finn since Finland is not an ethnic concept... but yes, I am an ethnic Finn if that mean's that I'm not an immigrant.

And you're are indeed correct that Finland's version of leftism is very different from Communism. But still Finland was politically hyper-correct in relation with the Soviet Union back in the days.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

[admiralnick]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

Exhibit A.

When you're referring to American Patroitism what are you referring to? Are you referring to our loyalty to the country, the flag, or the idea, or to something else?

-Nick

[Iconodule]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

Exhibit A.

When you're referring to American Patroitism what are you referring to? Are you referring to our loyalty to the country, the flag, or the idea, or to something else?

-Nick

Some of the odious facets that spring to mind:

- American exceptionalism, the idea that America is specially blessed by God above all other nations, with a special mission, or the idea that creativity, innovation, hard work, ruggedness, etc. are somehow uniquely American values, or that America is somehow the "best" country in the world.

- Dogmatic devotion to capitalism and American democratic ideology; veneration of the Founding Fathers; support for American imperial policies; treating the slavery and genocide of the past as if it were just an unfortunate bump on the road which we no longer need to worry about.

- "America: Love it or leave it"- the idea that questioning the basic ideology of America, or throwing a critical light on the sources of its prosperity, or critiquing its foreign policy, or otherwise refusing to join in triumphalistic flag-waving constitute disloyal and "Anti-American" behavior and a lack of appreciation for the advantages offered by living here.

[Papist]

One thing I don't undertand in Americans is their Patriotism. It seems so overwhelming that it gets corny. But then again that could be because Finns used to live next to the Soviet Union so Finnish political ethos became fairly leftist since nobody dared to be anything else in fear of insulting our beloved neighbour.

No, you're not wrong. American patriotism is pretty dumb.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to love the country that has provided you with all the opportunities and freedoms that that the USA does. 

Exhibit A.

When you're referring to American Patroitism what are you referring to? Are you referring to our loyalty to the country, the flag, or the idea, or to something else?

-Nick

Some of the odious facets that spring to mind:

- American exceptionalism, the idea that America is specially blessed by God above all other nations, with a special mission, or the idea that creativity, innovation, hard work, ruggedness, etc. are somehow uniquely American values, or that America is somehow the "best" country in the world.

That is not what American exceptionalism means. What it does mean is that, when looking at the empirical evidence, we have one of the freest nations on earth, and that such freedom has, in fact, produced a great deal of creativity and innovation, leading to a very prosperous nation.

- Dogmatic devotion to capitalism and American democratic ideology;

Our particular version of Capitalism (no the version supported by Obama) allows for greater freedom, more wealth for more people, and creative innovation.

veneration of the Founding Fathers;

In many ways, the Founding Fathers were brilliant men. We don't have to agree with everything that they said or did in order to recognize this.

support for American imperial policies;

I don't think that most Americans support this. In fact, I think many Americans would agree with Chesterton:
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

Most Americans who are very patriotic also tend to be very conservative. This does not mean that patriotism and support of every international action of our country go hand in hand, because patriotism and agreement with the government's action are not the same thing. This can be seen in the fact that conservative Patriots disagree vehemently with the nation's policy on abortion. I think you need to understand that, for Americans, patriotism and love for the government and it's decisions are not the same thing.

treating the slavery and genocide of the past as if it were just an unfortunate bump on the road which we no longer need to worry about.

Bologna. We spend tons of time studying the negative aspects of our past. We are constantly reminded of our failure in the realm of slavery and we highly venerate those exceptional Americans who worked towards its end. Why do you think that so many American Historians regard Abraham Lincoln as the greatest president of all time? But what we also recognize is that the founding philosophies of our country, "That all men are created equal" led to the end of slavery in our country. Thanks be to God.

- "America: Love it or leave it"- the idea that questioning the basic ideology of America, or throwing a critical light on the sources of its prosperity, or critiquing its foreign policy, or otherwise refusing to join in triumphalistic flag-waving constitute disloyal and "Anti-American" behavior and a lack of appreciation for the advantages offered by living here.

Again, I remind you of Cherston's statement. We love our country, even when it's wrong, and we need to behave as such. Part of our Patriotism is criticizing our government when it is wrong. Most Americans are now against the war in Iraq. Most Americans oppose our abortion policy. Loving the country is not the same as loving the government.

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

I agree with the concept that it is more than accident of birth, just as love for parents is more than the accident of birth. I love my parents becasue they begat me, but I also love them because the raised me, provided for me, taught me the truth of Christianity, etc. I love my homeland because it has formed me in many positive ways, provided for me, protected my God given freedoms, etc. I would say my identification of my homeland is more than my birth here, but not less than it.
I understand that the situation for an immigrant would be different. It would be more like choosing a spouse, which is also a beautiful analogoy.

[Iconodule]

- American exceptionalism, the idea that America is specially blessed by God above all other nations, with a special mission, or the idea that creativity, innovation, hard work, ruggedness, etc. are somehow uniquely American values, or that America is somehow the "best" country in the world.

That is not what American exceptionalism means. What it does mean is that, when looking at the empirical evidence, we have one of the freest nations on earth, and that such freedom has, in fact, produced a great deal of creativity and innovation, leading to a very prosperous nation. [/quote]

No, American exceptionalism does not mean "we are one of the freest nations on earth." That doesn't make us exceptional. It also doesn't mean we are a "very prosperous nation." There are other very prosperous nations. American exceptionalism means we are exceptional. Hence the word "exceptionalism."

Our particular version of Capitalism (no the version supported by Obama) allows for greater freedom, more wealth for more people, and creative innovation.

Your neocon capitalism and Obama's capitalism with a human face are two sides of the same coin.

support for American imperial policies;

I don't think that most Americans support this.

I remember the run-up to the Iraq war quite clearly. Do most Americans support imperialism? I don't know, but the loudest ones certainly do. I overheard, the other day, a news anchor saying (about the mid-east revolts) "We all love democracy, but is this in America's interest?"

I think you need to understand that, for Americans, patriotism and love for the government and it's decisions are not the same thing.

I think you need to understand that I am an American too, I live with Americans, I spend most of my time around Americans, and so I know first hand how ridiculous it is to claim that "Americans believe (blank)" as if we are a homogenous monolithic society.  

Bologna. We spend tons of time studying the negative aspects of our past.

And yet so little time considering the effects it continues to have today in our society.

But what we also recognize is that the founding philosophies of our country, "That all men are created equal" led to the end of slavery in our country. Thanks be to God.

One could just as well say that the ideology of "states' rights" preserved slavery to the bitter end. Many today continue to justify the Confederate cause as a fight for "states' rights" in which slavery was a peripheral issue.

It took more than fine words to abolish slavery, but John Brown is still vilified in many places.

Again, I remind you of Cherston's statement. We love our country, even when it's wrong, and we need to behave as such. Part of our Patriotism is criticizing our government when it is wrong.

Criticizing a particular configuration of that government is one thing; criticizing the underlying ideology a wholly different matter.

Most Americans are now against the war in Iraq.

Usually for the wrong reasons.

Loving the country is not the same as loving the government.

I love many people in this country. I love many cultural elements that have arisen here. I love its wealth of natural beauty. On the other hand, I hate its capitalism, its general foreign policy, and its prevailing popular culture. On the matter of democracy I am ambivalent. I don't hold to it as an absolute principle or as the best possible government. Am I a patriot to you?

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

I agree with the concept that it is more than accident of birth, just as love for parents is more than the accident of birth. I love my parents becasue they begat me, but I also love them because the raised me, provided for me, taught me the truth of Christianity, etc. I love my homeland because it has formed me in many positive ways, provided for me, protected my God given freedoms, etc. I would say my identification of my homeland is more than my birth here, but not less than it.
I understand that the situation for an immigrant would be different. It would be more like choosing a spouse, which is also a beautiful analogoy.

I'm sure America looks at it that way. What of the abandoned homeland?

I remember when I was in HS American History: dealing with the American-Mexican War, the teacher keep correcting a group of students when they said "we" when they meant the Mexicans, and the students, who were Mexican Americans, replied "which side do you think our ancestors fought on? I've seen similar exchanges over the War between the States with Southerners.

So, were the students treasonous and ungrateful?

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

I agree with the concept that it is more than accident of birth, just as love for parents is more than the accident of birth. I love my parents becasue they begat me, but I also love them because the raised me, provided for me, taught me the truth of Christianity, etc. I love my homeland because it has formed me in many positive ways, provided for me, protected my God given freedoms, etc. I would say my identification of my homeland is more than my birth here, but not less than it.
I understand that the situation for an immigrant would be different. It would be more like choosing a spouse, which is also a beautiful analogoy.

I'm sure America looks at it that way. What of the abandoned homeland?

I remember when I was in HS American History: dealing with the American-Mexican War, the teacher keep correcting a group of students when they said "we" when they meant the Mexicans, and the students, who were Mexican Americans, replied "which side do you think our ancestors fought on? I've seen similar exchanges over the War between the States with Southerners.

So, were the students treasonous and ungrateful?

To some degree I think so. My ancestors were on the Mexican side too. But this is the land that has formed me. The United States is where i live.

[Marc1152]

Gun Control = Holding your hands steady

Our Freedom is with an asterisk. If you are a serious threat to the Government or one of it's central policies, like a War, you are not so free.

When I was an activist, we were followed, our offices were constantly being burglarized by the FBI and files taken. Have you ever been burglerized by the Police? Who do you call to report it?

People had their reputations smeared by the FBI with false accusations sent to employers. Phones were tapped and roommates and fellow organizers often turned out to be paid Government informers.

We simply ran our candidates. If we had a position to express publicly we would rent a hall and hold a public Forum or participate in a Peaceful and Legal Demonstration. We sold our Newspaper and participated in our Unions. We never took drugs or did anything the slightest bit illegal because we knew were were being watched.  Yet we were targeted by the Government for destruction...

[Shiny]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

I agree with the concept that it is more than accident of birth, just as love for parents is more than the accident of birth. I love my parents becasue they begat me, but I also love them because the raised me, provided for me, taught me the truth of Christianity, etc. I love my homeland because it has formed me in many positive ways, provided for me, protected my God given freedoms, etc. I would say my identification of my homeland is more than my birth here, but not less than it.
I understand that the situation for an immigrant would be different. It would be more like choosing a spouse, which is also a beautiful analogoy.

I'm sure America looks at it that way. What of the abandoned homeland?

I remember when I was in HS American History: dealing with the American-Mexican War, the teacher keep correcting a group of students when they said "we" when they meant the Mexicans, and the students, who were Mexican Americans, replied "which side do you think our ancestors fought on? I've seen similar exchanges over the War between the States with Southerners.

So, were the students treasonous and ungrateful?

To some degree I think so. My ancestors were on the Mexican side too. But this is the land that has formed me. The United States is where i live.

It is also where they lived. Does it make a difference that they lived in Chicago and not the Southwest?

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

Dostoyevski, Kirkegaard. Sartre, perhaps not so much.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

I agree with the concept that it is more than accident of birth, just as love for parents is more than the accident of birth. I love my parents becasue they begat me, but I also love them because the raised me, provided for me, taught me the truth of Christianity, etc. I love my homeland because it has formed me in many positive ways, provided for me, protected my God given freedoms, etc. I would say my identification of my homeland is more than my birth here, but not less than it.
I understand that the situation for an immigrant would be different. It would be more like choosing a spouse, which is also a beautiful analogoy.

I'm sure America looks at it that way. What of the abandoned homeland?

I remember when I was in HS American History: dealing with the American-Mexican War, the teacher keep correcting a group of students when they said "we" when they meant the Mexicans, and the students, who were Mexican Americans, replied "which side do you think our ancestors fought on? I've seen similar exchanges over the War between the States with Southerners.

So, were the students treasonous and ungrateful?

To some degree I think so. My ancestors were on the Mexican side too. But this is the land that has formed me. The United States is where i live.

It is also where they lived. Does it make a difference that they lived in Chicago and not the Southwest?

Perhaps. I don't really know. I have never been to chicago, but I do know some hispanics here in New Mexico who agree with their (the hispanics that you meantioned) position. Perhaps I and my family are just a bunch of oddball Hispanic-American Conservatives. But I think it has to do with the following perception: Some hispanics see America as a "gringo" country. I see it as a melting pot.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

Dostoyevski, Kirkegaard. Sartre, perhaps not so much.

So, you are of the brand of existentialism that proposes that we know truth by experiencing it? Sorry to bother you with this request for clarification. It's just that the term "existentialism" has become so broad that it can mean many things to different people.

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

I see. So you don't believe in a real "human nature"?

[theo philosopher]

I think that people refuse to look at America as a vast contradiction; instead, they attempt to approach it from a black and white perspective, meaning they will view America as generally good with bouts of evil, or completely evil with accidental acts of good.

It's both/and. The American form of Capitalism since the 1880's ("Industrial Capitalism") has been extremely evil and oppressive. But it's difference in socialism is simply that a few hundred people control the nation's wealth rather than a few dozen. In short, they're the same thing.

Of course, at the same time, this same form of Capitalism has allowed a multitude of immigrants to come over from countries that had nothing and turn around and make something of themselves. Perhaps not for themselves, but for their children or their children's children. So is the American form of Capitalism evil? Yes, it is. But is it better than other systems of economics that aren't conducive to immigrants? Absolutely.

We look to slavery and see how horrendous it was and how many fought to defend it. But we also see that many gave their lives to eradicate it. The same nation that oppressed our black populace and other minorities is the same nation that allowed Dr. Martin Luther King to rise up; the same nation that shot him is the same nation that venerates him. We committed genocide against the Native Americans, but give their ancestors free college education as a realization that we were wrong (though we could do much better).

We have never been a nation that liked the idea of war. Even in our revolution there were those opposed to going to war. Since WWII we have been involved in what could be considered "empire building" and acting like the world's police, a role that the US isn't fit for and that the world doesn't want. At the same time, our soldiers have stepped foot on more countries in order to aid them in a time of crisis rather than to invade them to replace a despotic leader. The war in Iraq was an unjust war (by the Scholastic standards of a just war), but justice is coming out of it.

We're a nation that has produced the Klan, black supremacy groups, and even Latino supremacy groups, but we also have some of the highest rates of mixed-race couples in the world. We're a nation that won't pay for the healthcare of our poorest citizens, but a nation where our poorest citizens are better off than 99% of the world.

If you focus on just the good in America, or just the bad in America, you get an incomplete and woeful picture. If you focus on the good then you view America as divinely guided by God, a bright light in a dark and bleak world. If you focus on the bad, then you view America as evil and a problem for the world. The fact is, neither view is accurate. America is a contradiction, it is both good and bad, both a problem and a solution.

[theo philosopher]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

That's exactly where I was going with this. I would also add that existentialism is self refuting. What they propse about human beings, they propose to be ture of human beings. But that assumes that the term "human being" is meaningful, otherwise one could not talk about it, and thus, they implicitly accept the reality of a human nature while denying it.
What is more, existentialists define human beings as those beings that can determine themselves. But that is an essentialist description. What it all boils down to is that the nomimalism that underlies most existentialism is really self refuting.

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

I see. So you don't believe in a real "human nature"?

Individual human beings exist.  Human nature exists only in them, and they determnine their own destiny-that's the Image and Likeness of God which seperates them from the animals.

That runs head on on natural law and other such nonsense, but that's how it is. It also contradicts even the likes of St. Maximus, who in this area errored-man and woman are not reduceable into a "human nature."

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence).

No, the Person of Christ preceeded the existence of the man Christ. In fact, the Incarnation cannot work in any other way. Christ could not "advance in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men" (Lk. 2:52. Btw, I just noticed that a comparison of this and Lk. 2:40 nullifies the attempt to use Lk. 1:28 as prooftext for the IC) if His essence preceeded His existence.

You would also have to deny that God created us.

You're going to have to thresh that out a bit before I can answer it.

In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

Can you give specifics?

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

That's exactly where I was going with this. I would also add that existentialism is self refuting. What they propse about human beings, they propose to be ture of human beings. But that assumes that the term "human being" is meaningful, otherwise one could not talk about it, and thus, they implicitly accept the reality of a human nature while denying it.
What is more, existentialists define human beings as those beings that can determine themselves. But that is an essentialist description. What it all boils down to is that the nomimalism that underlies most existentialism is really self refuting.

So the Platonists tell themselves. But following Plato earned Origen an anathema.

[Papist]

Individual human beings exist.  Human nature exists only in them,

Actually, Thomists and Aristotleans would agree with you on this point. The universa natures do exists, but they only in exist in particulars, in individuals. It's called moderate realism.

and they determnine their own destiny

You are going to have to clarify what you mean here. Do you mean that we decide what our own end is? If that is the case, then you are not in agreement with Christianity which teaches that God is our end. Do you mean that we can decide whether or not to pursue that end or another in it's place? If that is what you are saying, then you are not in disagreement with Aristotleans.

that's the Image and Likeness of God which seperates them from the animals

God is good, and never chooses evil. If we are to live out our "image and likeness of God" then we need to choose the same. We are like God because we have a will and an intellect capable of knowing and doing good. To go against this is to go agianst our end. We can do this, but then we are not living in accord with our nature or essence. Do you think that human beings were made to do evil?

That runs head on on natural law and other such nonsense, but that's how it is. It also contradicts even the likes of St. Maximus, who in this area errored-man and woman are not reduceable into a "human nature."

Actually, not really. The few times I have seen you disccuss Natural Law, you have made it evidently clear that you don't know what natural law is. It merely means that we shoulde choose to live in accord with what we are made for but we are free to not do so. The logical conclusion of creation is that we have natures. And we have those natures, we should live in accord with them. BTW, natural is not the "law of the jungle" as you and Fr. Ambrose seemed to think in our last discussion on the matter.
Also, I agree that human beings are more than their nature. BUT, they are not less.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

That's exactly where I was going with this. I would also add that existentialism is self refuting. What they propse about human beings, they propose to be ture of human beings. But that assumes that the term "human being" is meaningful, otherwise one could not talk about it, and thus, they implicitly accept the reality of a human nature while denying it.
What is more, existentialists define human beings as those beings that can determine themselves. But that is an essentialist description. What it all boils down to is that the nomimalism that underlies most existentialism is really self refuting.

So the Platonists tell themselves. But following Plato earned Origen an anathema.

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

[FormerReformer]

There is an assumption in this thread that America has a unified culture that marks us as distinctly American. I would contend against this idea and say that even within America, we only have sub cultures without a meta-culture (though the sub-cultures are different from other world cultures, thus Americans as a whole appear different).

For instance, spend time in Dallas, TX, Abilene, TX, a small town in Missouri, a small town in Washington, Los Angeles, CA, and New York, New York and you will experience multiple cultures that are greatly distinct from each other.

For instance, name an American language, cuisine, music style, etc. Fact is, every dialect of English found in America, every type of food, every type of music, are parts of American sub-culture...but there is no unifying factor in American culture. I love cajun food because of the spices, but most people in the Northeastern United States will hate it because it's too spicy (and apparently the only spice they're aware of in New England is ketchup). A meal in the midwest will gross out someone from the West Coast. The accents of someone from southwest Louisiana or northern Alabama are almost unrecognizable to someone from Boston or Maine.

It used to be said that there was an underlying ethos that united Americans, one of the first cultures built upon a unifying idea rather than language or any other cultural traits; but we don't even have that anymore.

If anything, there is no such thing as an American culture; just multiple cultures unified by a government. Thus, what many "foreigners" (such a subjective term!) fail to realize when they meet an American is they are not meeting someone who represents American culture, but only represents one of the cultures in the nation of the United States. Thus, the US appears confusing and contradictory to the rest of the world because we are a contradiction.

America certainly isn't alone in this regard.  Go to England, a small island nation about the size of one of our medium-small states.  Someone from south England is going to have a very different dialect than someone from York and the foods and attitudes will be fairly distinct as well.

And actually, America can be fairly easily distinguished by a few cultures: rural and city and North and South.  American rural communities are virtually identical: you have the main road off the highway with whatever establishments the town has (homogenized even further by the invasion of corporate America into small communities, the family diners are giving way to McDonald's and Burger King) and two churches across the street from each other (whatever the two popular denominations are, up North it will be Lutheran and Catholic, down South Baptist and Methodist), and while the residents will be friendly enough you will always be an outsider if you weren't born there.  The cities will be identical as well, the main difference being architecture: you'll have the corrupt city government and affectations of being "cultured", the well-to-do and gentrifying areas and the ghettoes.  By and large the rural areas will be "conservative" and the urban areas will be "liberal".  North and South only really distinguish the rural communities, in the North there's likely to be a local bar or two, in the South you'll have to get to know the guy with the moonshine still.

The main exception is Florida, which is a backward and nonsensical state, where the further north you drive the more Southern you're getting and the further south you drive the more things will be Northern.

Really? Why don't you come visit New Mexico. It seems that no one really understands our strange mixture of liberalism, conservatism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Urban life, rural life, technology, art, poverty, money, American Patriotism, Mexican Nationalism, Spanish/New Mexican Culture, Native American Culture, Mexican Immigrant cutlure, White Culture, etc. etc. etc. all within a five mile radius. Trust me. WE are more complex than you think

Not too much more complex, basically the addition of East and West to the categories.  But I've found the East-West dichotomy to be nowhere near as strong as the North-South dichotomy.  The main thing with the West is that the more conservative South is informed by Catholicism over Protestantism, while the more liberal North is informed by Protestantism over Catholicism.  Everything else you've mentioned is found equally elsewhere (with the exception of Mexican Nationalism, in the East it is more likely to be Cuban or even Puerto Rican). 

New Mexico does, however, have more reservations than elsewhere (though the largest spreads between NM and AZ) which will contribute to a perceived complexity.  This is to be expected: A reservation is, in theory at least, a completely different nation altogether.

Of course, the West has it's own version of the backward state of Florida in California, where the further south you travel the more "Northern" the flavor, while North Cali is the bastion of Conservatism.

On a side note, I was really impressed with New Mexico when I traveled through there many years ago, not due to the specialty of the culture but rather the landscape.  Beautiful land formations, like nowhere else on earth.

I think that people refuse to look at America as a vast contradiction; instead, they attempt to approach it from a black and white perspective, meaning they will view America as generally good with bouts of evil, or completely evil with accidental acts of good.

It's both/and....

I've always viewed America as having it's own version of the Llogress/England duality CS Lewis mentions in That Hideous Strength.  Basically you have a conflict between the "mythic" idealized version of the nation and the cold hard materialistic "reality" on the ground.  The ideals of America are indeed a great thing, but it's these high ideals that make the country seem so depraved when she fails to live up to them.  It is important, of course, to be aware of the failings, but not so much so that you forget to strive for the heights.

[ialmisry]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

That's exactly where I was going with this. I would also add that existentialism is self refuting. What they propse about human beings, they propose to be ture of human beings. But that assumes that the term "human being" is meaningful, otherwise one could not talk about it, and thus, they implicitly accept the reality of a human nature while denying it.
What is more, existentialists define human beings as those beings that can determine themselves. But that is an essentialist description. What it all boils down to is that the nomimalism that underlies most existentialism is really self refuting.

So the Platonists tell themselves. But following Plato earned Origen an anathema.

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

Given the choice between the two, so am I, so I guess no distinction there.

Yesterday this came up in our priest's talk on the Infant Jesus and Divine Omniscience.  He was saying that the Infant Jesus, due to the Incarnation, didn't know anything.  He admitted that that presupposed an Aristotelean idea of the acquisition of knowledge, rather than Platonism, in which knowledge is already ingrained. This, on the heels of a conversation I had with parisioners who teach philosophy and patristics, where I brought up that it seems philosophical schools bear more resemblance to religions than to, say, the branchs of mathmatics. It seems the philosophical schools do more than supply methodologies: they supply (or impose) some of the answers as well.

Take what we propose for human beings we found true of human beings, and assumes only human beings. It does not assume an abstract "humanity": Christ died for individual human beings, not for "humanity."  Humanity/human nature, for instance, would need a race of hermaphrodites, as both men and women are human beings, and yet not reduceable to a common core.

And no, it is not an essentialist definition, as angels also can and do determine their destinies, as does God. But humans are neither angels nor God. Nominalism is vindicated.

[Papist]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."  -G.K. Chesterton

I like Chesterton's view of patriotism. We love our mothers whether they are drunk or sober. Though, we prefer them to be sober and would work to help maintain their state of sobriety. In a similar way, we love our homeland whether it is right or wrong, but we prefer it be right. Therefore, when it is wrong, we do everything in our power to correct it's course. That is the true patriot.

As an Existentialst, I'm fascinated with the concept that homeland is determined by the accident of birth. Of course, it that were consistent, then there would be no America, which might suit many Amerindians quite fine.

Whom has influenced your position on being an Existentialist?

I wonder what he means by existentialism. Does he mean that we learn the truth by experiencing and living it, or, does he mean what sartre taught, that we have no termined "natures" or "essences" are we simply are whatever we decide to be?

All of the above: existence preceedes essence.

So then the Incarnation is impossible (the idea of the Incarnation is based solely on the idea that essence precedes existence). You would also have to deny that God created us. In fact, you'd have to deny everything the early Church taught (and teaches) concerning humanity.

That's exactly where I was going with this. I would also add that existentialism is self refuting. What they propse about human beings, they propose to be ture of human beings. But that assumes that the term "human being" is meaningful, otherwise one could not talk about it, and thus, they implicitly accept the reality of a human nature while denying it.
What is more, existentialists define human beings as those beings that can determine themselves. But that is an essentialist description. What it all boils down to is that the nomimalism that underlies most existentialism is really self refuting.

So the Platonists tell themselves. But following Plato earned Origen an anathema.

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

Given the choice between the two, so am I, so I guess no distinction there.

Yesterday this came up in our priest's talk on the Infant Jesus and Divine Omniscience.  He was saying that the Infant Jesus, due to the Incarnation, didn't know anything.  He admitted that that presupposed an Aristotelean idea of the acquisition of knowledge, rather than Platonism, in which knowledge is already ingrained. This, on the heels of a conversation I had with parisioners who teach philosophy and patristics, where I brought up that it seems philosophical schools bear more resemblance to religions than to, say, the branchs of mathmatics. It seems the philosophical schools do more than supply methodologies: they supply (or impose) some of the answers as well.

Take what we propose for human beings we found true of human beings, and assumes only human beings. It does not assume an abstract "humanity"

Your entire conversation assumes an abstract "humanity", otherwise what you are saying would be meaningless.

: Christ died for individual human beings, not for "humanity."

But, in order to do so he assumity what is common to all of us:"he was like us in all things except sin."

 Humanity/human nature, for instance, would need a race of hermaphrodites, as both men and women are human beings, and yet not reduceable to a common core.

Not at all. The one human nature can have more than one mode of existence. It is not essential to human nature to be male. It is not essential to human nature to be female. It essential to human nature to have a gender, either male or female. Do you understand the difference?

And no, it is not an essentialist definition, as angels also can and do determine their destinies, as does God. But humans are neither angels nor God. Nominalism is vindicated.

First, the fact that we can choose our ends only demonstrates that we all having something in common: Free will, which demonstrates a common nature. Again, you are an essentialist.  Second, the fact that we can choose against our intended end (doesn't God have a particular end for us?) does not demonstrate that we shouldn't choose the proper end. Thus you have done nothing to bolster the position of nominalism. Of course, it's impossible to logically defend a self refuting philosophies but you sure are trying.

BTW, as long as you admit that we have a common nature, even if it's found in particular persons, you are not really a nominalist, but a realist.

[KBN1]

Americans are generally good people with a corporatist government that is controlled by bankers who profit from war that does a heck of a job convincing the American people that they actually have a say in anything.  So it is a huge contradiction if you try to look at the people and the government as the same entity.  But therein lies the power of the ruse. 

[ialmisry]

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

Given the choice between the two, so am I, so I guess no distinction there.

Yesterday this came up in our priest's talk on the Infant Jesus and Divine Omniscience.  He was saying that the Infant Jesus, due to the Incarnation, didn't know anything.  He admitted that that presupposed an Aristotelean idea of the acquisition of knowledge, rather than Platonism, in which knowledge is already ingrained. This, on the heels of a conversation I had with parisioners who teach philosophy and patristics, where I brought up that it seems philosophical schools bear more resemblance to religions than to, say, the branchs of mathmatics. It seems the philosophical schools do more than supply methodologies: they supply (or impose) some of the answers as well.

Take what we propose for human beings we found true of human beings, and assumes only human beings. It does not assume an abstract "humanity"

Your entire conversation assumes an abstract "humanity", otherwise what you are saying would be meaningless.

Not at all.  I can talk of languages, although no language in the abstract exists.

: Christ died for individual human beings, not for "humanity."

But, in order to do so he assumity what is common to all of us:"he was like us in all things except sin."

That begs the question if we possess an abstract humanity.

Care to tell us what you are quoting?

 Humanity/human nature, for instance, would need a race of hermaphrodites, as both men and women are human beings, and yet not reduceable to a common core.

Not at all. The one human nature can have more than one mode of existence.

Only if you believe in modalism.

It is not essential to human nature to be male. It is not essential to human nature to be female. It essential to human nature to have a gender, either male or female. Do you understand the difference?

LOL. Yes, yet again, I understand the difference. And yet I point out that it is an incorrect understanding of humans.

And no, it is not an essentialist definition, as angels also can and do determine their destinies, as does God. But humans are neither angels nor God. Nominalism is vindicated.

First, the fact that we can choose our ends only demonstrates that we all having something in common: Free will, which demonstrates a common nature.

God, the angels, and human beings do not have a common nature.

Again, you are an essentialist.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that.

Second, the fact that we can choose against our intended end (doesn't God have a particular end for us?)

(only if you are a Calvinist).

does not demonstrate that we shouldn't choose the proper end.

No one said we shouldn't.

Thus you have done nothing to bolster the position of nominalism. Of course, it's impossible to logically defend a self refuting philosophies but you sure are trying.

Ah, the power of fiat. LOL.

BTW, as long as you admit that we have a common nature, even if it's found in particular persons, you are not really a nominalist, but a realist.

As a realist, you would claim that, wouldn't you?

[tuesdayschild]

the more conservative South is informed by Catholicism over Protestantism

Would you expand on this point, please?

[Shiny]

"In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles" -David Ben Gurion

[FormerReformer]

the more conservative South is informed by Catholicism over Protestantism

Would you expand on this point, please?

Basically, in the Western states, the Southern states are still "conservative" (Red States) but due to the native Mexican population this conservatism is due to the semi-indigenous Catholicism than the Protestantism brought over by the Anglo settlers.  This is a reversal on the Eastern portion of America, where the South is still Red State central, but more along Protestant Evangelical lines, while the North has more Catholics (and "high church" denominations) but is instead liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Catholicism_by_state  Here is a list of states with their majority denominations.  I was somewhat wrong in my analysis of the Western North being informed by Protestantism, it has just as many Catholics as the Southern portion.  I'm really just thinking off the top of my head here, this thread has more entertainment value than actual importance to me.

[Papist]

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

Given the choice between the two, so am I, so I guess no distinction there.

Yesterday this came up in our priest's talk on the Infant Jesus and Divine Omniscience.  He was saying that the Infant Jesus, due to the Incarnation, didn't know anything.  He admitted that that presupposed an Aristotelean idea of the acquisition of knowledge, rather than Platonism, in which knowledge is already ingrained. This, on the heels of a conversation I had with parisioners who teach philosophy and patristics, where I brought up that it seems philosophical schools bear more resemblance to religions than to, say, the branchs of mathmatics. It seems the philosophical schools do more than supply methodologies: they supply (or impose) some of the answers as well.

Take what we propose for human beings we found true of human beings, and assumes only human beings. It does not assume an abstract "humanity"

Your entire conversation assumes an abstract "humanity", otherwise what you are saying would be meaningless.

Not at all.  I can talk of languages, although no language in the abstract exists.

: Christ died for individual human beings, not for "humanity."

But, in order to do so he assumity what is common to all of us:"he was like us in all things except sin."

That begs the question if we possess an abstract humanity.

Care to tell us what you are quoting?

 Humanity/human nature, for instance, would need a race of hermaphrodites, as both men and women are human beings, and yet not reduceable to a common core.

Not at all. The one human nature can have more than one mode of existence.

Only if you believe in modalism.

It is not essential to human nature to be male. It is not essential to human nature to be female. It essential to human nature to have a gender, either male or female. Do you understand the difference?

LOL. Yes, yet again, I understand the difference. And yet I point out that it is an incorrect understanding of humans.

And no, it is not an essentialist definition, as angels also can and do determine their destinies, as does God. But humans are neither angels nor God. Nominalism is vindicated.

First, the fact that we can choose our ends only demonstrates that we all having something in common: Free will, which demonstrates a common nature.

God, the angels, and human beings do not have a common nature.

Again, you are an essentialist.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that.

Second, the fact that we can choose against our intended end (doesn't God have a particular end for us?)

(only if you are a Calvinist).

does not demonstrate that we shouldn't choose the proper end.

No one said we shouldn't.

Thus you have done nothing to bolster the position of nominalism. Of course, it's impossible to logically defend a self refuting philosophies but you sure are trying.

Ah, the power of fiat. LOL.

BTW, as long as you admit that we have a common nature, even if it's found in particular persons, you are not really a nominalist, but a realist.

As a realist, you would claim that, wouldn't you?

Making alot of what you think are clever statements is not an argument Isa. You can do better than that.
As for what I was quoting, : The epistle to the Hebrews.

[tuesdayschild]

the more conservative South is informed by Catholicism over Protestantism

Would you expand on this point, please?

Basically, in the Western states, the Southern states are still "conservative" (Red States) but due to the native Mexican population this conservatism is due to the semi-indigenous Catholicism than the Protestantism brought over by the Anglo settlers.  This is a reversal on the Eastern portion of America, where the South is still Red State central, but more along Protestant Evangelical lines, while the North has more Catholics (and "high church" denominations) but is instead liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Catholicism_by_state  Here is a list of states with their majority denominations.  I was somewhat wrong in my analysis of the Western North being informed by Protestantism, it has just as many Catholics as the Southern portion.  I'm really just thinking off the top of my head here, this thread has more entertainment value than actual importance to me.

Thanks. I misunderstood earlier. I thought you were suggesting that the Southeastern US was more Catholic than Protestant.

[ialmisry]

I am not a Platonist. I am an Aristotlean.

Given the choice between the two, so am I, so I guess no distinction there.

Yesterday this came up in our priest's talk on the Infant Jesus and Divine Omniscience.  He was saying that the Infant Jesus, due to the Incarnation, didn't know anything.  He admitted that that presupposed an Aristotelean idea of the acquisition of knowledge, rather than Platonism, in which knowledge is already ingrained. This, on the heels of a conversation I had with parisioners who teach philosophy and patristics, where I brought up that it seems philosophical schools bear more resemblance to religions than to, say, the branchs of mathmatics. It seems the philosophical schools do more than supply methodologies: they supply (or impose) some of the answers as well.

Take what we propose for human beings we found true of human beings, and assumes only human beings. It does not assume an abstract "humanity"

Your entire conversation assumes an abstract "humanity", otherwise what you are saying would be meaningless.

Not at all.  I can talk of languages, although no language in the abstract exists.

: Christ died for individual human beings, not for "humanity."

But, in order to do so he assumity what is common to all of us:"he was like us in all things except sin."

That begs the question if we possess an abstract humanity.

Care to tell us what you are quoting?

 Humanity/human nature, for instance, would need a race of hermaphrodites, as both men and women are human beings, and yet not reduceable to a common core.

Not at all. The one human nature can have more than one mode of existence.

Only if you believe in modalism.

It is not essential to human nature to be male. It is not essential to human nature to be female. It essential to human nature to have a gender, either male or female. Do you understand the difference?

LOL. Yes, yet again, I understand the difference. And yet I point out that it is an incorrect understanding of humans.

And no, it is not an essentialist definition, as angels also can and do determine their destinies, as does God. But humans are neither angels nor God. Nominalism is vindicated.

First, the fact that we can choose our ends only demonstrates that we all having something in common: Free will, which demonstrates a common nature.

God, the angels, and human beings do not have a common nature.

Again, you are an essentialist.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that.

Second, the fact that we can choose against our intended end (doesn't God have a particular end for us?)

(only if you are a Calvinist).

does not demonstrate that we shouldn't choose the proper end.

No one said we shouldn't.

Thus you have done nothing to bolster the position of nominalism. Of course, it's impossible to logically defend a self refuting philosophies but you sure are trying.

Ah, the power of fiat. LOL.

BTW, as long as you admit that we have a common nature, even if it's found in particular persons, you are not really a nominalist, but a realist.

As a realist, you would claim that, wouldn't you?

Making alot of what you think are clever statements is not an argument Isa. You can do better than that.

Given what I have to work with/what I'm responding to.  Don't want to argue both pro and con by myself.

As for what I was quoting, : The epistle to the Hebrews.

Care to cite the chapter and verse?

[genesisone]

Can anyone point me to something similar to this elsewhere in the world?

Yes, I know it's pure Protestantism, but those of us outside the US simply don't understand what's going on here.

[KBN1]

Can anyone point me to something similar to this elsewhere in the world?

Yes, I know it's pure Protestantism, but those of us outside the US simply don't understand what's going on here.

Here is an article by George Monbiot from 2003 that appeared in The Guardian.  "America Is A Religion"  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/29/usa.comment

"...this notion of election has been conflated with another, still more dangerous idea. It is not just that the Americans are God's chosen people; America itself is now perceived as a divine project."

Fr. Thomas Hopko has referenced a book on the same subject a couple of times in his podcasts, but I can't seem to figure out what it is.