Love and Contemporary Politics

My wife has been sharing with me some of the stuff folks are posting are social media about the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings. I have read a decent number of op-eds from both sides of the issue (from both pro-Ford and Pro-Kavanaugh persons). I do not pretend to have more details than any of you. If you know of relevant details please post them in the comments section. I am trying to think hard about how I am supposed to love in such cases. I think SK's philosophical commentary on the Bible can give us some guidance here. It is not at all surprising, but it is contrary to my impulses and I bet it is contrary to yours.

I am to love Ford as though I am her. I am to love her as myself. My wife told me about a meme or whatever that asks us to imagine Ford as our mother or grandmother or daughter. Amen! In fact, we should go further; I should imagine Ford as myself. When I do that, I want to weep with her.

I am to love Kavanaugh as though I am him. I am to love him as myself. I do not know if these are out there, but imagine a meme that tells us to pretend Kavanaugh is our father or grandfather or son. Amen! Let's do that. In fact, we should go further; I should imagine Kavanaugh as myself. When I do that, I want to weep with him.

Where does this leave me? Weeping. Is this, in the eyes of the world, a foolish love? I suspect it is. It leaves me without much to say at all. I do not have an opinion about the political issues here. I am not competent enough to have one. But I really want to be a neighbor to each of them. And I can be. Jesus, help me to do it. Please!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problems of the One and the Many

As I mentioned in class the other day, there are a bunch of problems that can be categorized as being related to the problem of the one and the many. The basic issue is that when oneness is prioritized, manyness gets cut out and when manyness is prioritized oneness gets cut out. Or put differently, when unity is most fundamental, diversity gets eliminated and when diversity is most fundamental, unity gets eliminated.  Let’s consider some examples:  Ethics : Making individuals more fundamental than communities results in communities being sacrificed for the sake of the individual. My interests, desires, hopes, etc take precedence over those of the community. If the individual is most fundamental, then it is permissible for the individual to prioritize her interests over those of the community. Making the community more fundamental than the individual results in individuals being sacrificed for the sake of the community. The community’s interest, desires, hopes, etc tak...
Read more

The Intellectual Arbitrariness Objection to Religious Exclusivism: version 1

Here is my presentation of the objection: The objection here claims that we have an epistemic duty to treat like cases alike: if the evidence I have for p is the same (or similar) to the evidence that you have for ~p, then we should suspend belief with respect to p and ~p. Response 1:   The evidence will, in many or most cases, not be relevantly similarly. The phenomenology (the way the evidence is experienced by the subject) will be different, and thus the internal evidence will be different. Different rankings of evidence will be likely resulting in different overall assessment of the evidence.  Reply:  But those who deny (1) and (2) may have the same phenomenology and whatnot so that there really is relevant similarity—all the way down to how the evidence feels and is assessed. Think of two different detectives with the exact same evidence, same experience on the job, same level of intelligence, etc. and yet they each arrive at a different conclusion. I...
Read more

The Intellectual Arbitrariness Objection: Version 2

Suppose you had been born in Saudi Arabia. If you had been you would have been a Muslim. Suppose you had been born in India. If you had been you would have been a Hindu. Suppose you had been born... If you had been, you would have been... Considerations like these can quite easily give rise to the thought that your current religious beliefs (e.g. that God exists, that Jesus is his son and is the savior of the world, ...) are in some sense arbitrary. You are not justified in thinking that the religious beliefs that you actually have are true and thus that every belief that is incompatible with them is false. After all, you only believe what you do because of a kind of accident of birth. This gives rise to the following principle:  If  S 's religious or philosophical beliefs are such that if  S  had been born elsewhere and elsewhen, she wouldn't have held them, then those beliefs are produced by unreliable belief-producing mechanisms and hence have no war...
Read more