Georgetown's Patrick Deneen explains why he goes on about the problem with peak oil, consumerism, and apocalyptic whatnot:
[M]y argument is not that we are doomed because we are running out of stuff. My constant attention to the problems we face is not intended as a wake up call for innovation and invention: it's rather to insinuate the possibility that we are destroying ourselves by degree because we refuse to govern our appetites or even see these appetites as problematic. I'm highly dubious that we will "invent" our way out of the need to govern ourselves, and am dead certain that nature and the order of the world will not indefinitely brook our misbehavior. We should be mindful that our near-automatic response to the fact of depletions that surround us - that we MUST find other means to continue running our current way of life - is directly the result of our unwillingness to understand that "the disorder of the world originates in disorder of soul". The problem is not intrinsically the various depletions we face (but, boy, are they problems): the problem lies in the more fundamental motivation of our thoughtless response that avoids considering whether our behavior has anything to do with the problems we face, and might in fact further exacerbate those problems, as well as create greater ones, the longer we refuse to face this possibility.Above all, Fr. Schall instructs us, we must learn that we are "self-insufficient." In this remarkable and delightful phrase, Fr. Schall refutes one of the most pernicious and false beliefs of our time - that we are or ever can be "self-sufficient." Our frailty and insufficiency is at the heart of the most fundamental truth we must learn - a truth that much of modern life is arranged to obscure and permit us a kind of self-deception. Such understanding calls to mind the great reminder of Vaclav Havel, that "we are not God." Only with that understanding can we begin to govern ourselves - understanding our "selves" as not the whole of what we are - and begin to value something other than the feeding of the insatiable selves that are the most fundamental obstacles to a true form of freedom.
I was reading something in Jacques Barzun over the holiday. Must look for it and post it. Something he said about our era being an era of Emancipation (from any fetters -- legal, cultural, religious, moral -- on the individual will), and that people today mistake Emancipation for Freedom. Anyway, the most important political task for Americans is not whether we will choose to be governed by Republicans or Democrats. Rather, it's whether or not we will govern ourselves and our insatiable appetites.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Simon:
Megan Meier's parents never would have known what really happened to their daughter either if not for one of the girls who Mrs. Drew brought into her diabolical scheme confessing to her own parents out of guilt -- who, in turn, confessed to the Meiers. So your own example really isn't applicable.
Look, I thought I already agreed with my David Mamet reference that it was a he-said/he-said situation that no outsider is probably going to agree on 100%, either way. (Oleanna, anyone?)
What angers me is that you AUTOMATICALLY presumed Fr. Schall was 100% right and that I was 100% wrong. And that you have and continue to willfully misstate back to the board my description of what happened. And that you have and continue to willfully minimize to the board the potentially disastrous consequences of Fr. Schall's actions, intended or otherwise, and whatever their motivations if intentional.
(I also realize that conservatives always disagree, and liberals always agree, that the personal can be political. I think that's a big part of the problem here, actually. I honestly thought, given Fr. Schall's prominent views in the OP in a very ironic way from my own experience with him, that this was an applicable example of the personal being political -- particularly because Fr. Schall IS a public figure. I didn't mean for it to escalate the way it did either, but c'est la vie.)
Franklin:
I understand your point. I wasn't REALLY meaning to compare myself to Rod. It is his blog, not mine, you're absolutely right. On the other hand, I have almost as much professional experience in journalism and writing as he does, even if he has advanced much further in the profession.
So I don't think it's fair to say I have 0% credibility if Rod has 100%, particularly since I post with my actual name IRL and can thus be at least googled. (I don't have 100% either by that scale -- again, Rod's blog, not mine -- but I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt, say, 51%. Which I have most definitely NOT received in this case.)
PS to both of you -- There is SOME blogger on Bnet who thinks I have a bit of credibility as a writer, if you scan the various Bnet bloggers' entries for today ...
Larry and Simon,
I don't mean to belabor your conflict here, but I respect you both too much to not at least mention some things from a neutral POV. That's important to know here: I am not implying personal support for either of you. Sympathy for Larry, yes, having been in a similar situation myself several times, I can't avoid that sympathy. But Simon's general points are important, too.
The key usage in my previous post is "objective responsibility". I meant that to keep plenty of room for any individual's personal (subjective being the implied complement) commitment to integrity and honesty in written posts. I don't mean this to be at all gratuitous: you both demonstrate that commitment, and I honor you both for it.
Larry has the right to share his personal experience, and to do so assertively. The reader -- me, Simon, anyone -- has the right to be skeptical of the details of that experience as it has been expressed in text form.
There is a trap. It is ubiquitous and insidious. It's the natural tendency to fill in the gaps, and acquire assumptions about the unwritten aspects of anyone's stated points. We ascribe motive, attitude, underlying and attached beliefs and opinions. Often, our assumptions are correct. Often, our assumptions are dead wrong. It is easy to start out being civil in a discussion with strangers, but it becomes very difficult to maintain that civility in the roller coaster ride of assumptions and their proof and disproof.
I apologize if that comes across as lecturing. I am passionately interested in online community -- and all of the implications of that term as we compare ourselves here with real-life community -- and I am inspired to share my views on it at the drop of a hat (and I'm not wearing one). ;-)
Franklin, Thank you for your good counsel and characteristically thoughtful and temperate words.
Larry, I apologize if my language has come across as a personal attack on you. In re-reading my posts on this thread, I do not believe I have attacked your character. It wasn't and isn't my intention to do so.
What set me off is your specific post at the top of this thread, insinuating improper conduct by someone I happen to know (based on your personal assumptions about what his motives were).
sigilaris followed that up with a post dismissing Fr. Schall's moral authority as having been discredited by his conduct -- based on her apparent assumption that your account of what Schall said or did, AND your interpretation of his motives, were entirely correct.
For all the reasons noted above, I remain highly skeptical of your interpretation of this incident. If you wish to interpret my skepticism as a personal attack on your character, that's your prerogative, though I hope you will choose not to do so.
But I believe very strongly that posts such as the one that led off the comments on this thread are not appropriate and in most cases are a disservice to truth.
Simon:
Which gets to my point above about the perennial conservative v. liberal conflict about whether the personal can ever be political. So if that's all this is, after umpteen posts, I'll gladly drop it. (Though I'm still disappointed you refuse to trust me on that personal basis -- we'll never agree politically, obviously.)
Franklin:
Your counsel is wise and appreciated. Ever thought of diplomacy?
Larry:
Ever thought of diplomacy?
You're handing me an opening for my story -- ya know, the one that allows me to claim sympathy for your story -- and it's not really necessary here. Suffice it to say that I have thought about what else I could be doing, and I'm 51 years old, so you can do the math for where my thoughts have gone and the complexity of them. ;-)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.