I cut ties on a 40+ year friendship--and that still pains me deeply--because my former friend went deep into the antisemitism/anti-Zionism rabbit hole. And yes, in one of the conversations that preceded the end, she said that she had hadn't wanted to have the conversation because I knew too much. This from a PhD physicist.
(I had pushed for the conversation, she had tried to hide her beliefs. Why? To "protect me." Bullshit--it was to protect herself.
A timely question and an enlightening answer, Daniel. … But what do you now tell the voters in a democracy? Should they still be allowed to publicly opine on the issues of the day via the ballot box? Or do you and David Hume think they should keep their ill-informed opinions to themselves?
Thanks Alan. Certainly they must vote as sovereignty resides in the people. However they must get their information from people they see as having genuine authority to opine. The moment that "prejudice" is shown they must ignore the view given. This is not about limiting the public right to decide. It is rather about training the public to identify charlatans.
"Must vote"... "must get"... "must ignore"... that's a lot of "musts"! :-) I'm afraid if you keep tugging on this particular thread, some rather important things begin to unravel.
I know a young man who is considering going to grad school to study public policy and international affairs. But he's hesitating partly because of a great divide: there's the world according to the books he'd read in grad school and the theories he'd be taught; then there's the world he sees emerging outside his front door. It's a world where most of those theories don't matter a bit. A world where "genuine authority" and the definition of charlatan have little impact on voters who have, according to you, "sovereignty."
You have an admirable respect for the facts, for the scientific method, and for experts. But man does not live on facts alone. And no amount of David Hume will provide the sustenance that many people clearly need.
All that said, I really enjoyed your essay. You ask exactly the right questions even though I don't always agree with your answers. :-)
The reality of life is difficult but if we are not even going to aim for a public with the will to research decent information what is the point of education?!
And on a separate point, the Middle Eastern debate which is highly adversarial encourages prejudice. And we love it! Hume and I are right to point this problem out. And history will vindicate the truth tellers just as it vindicates real artists.
I'm all for education, but education about exactly what? ... I'm about to type something I never could have imagined 40 years ago, but here it is: Public education (in the United States) should include the Bible. Not as holy scripture or as the gospel truth(s), but as a Book that has demonstrably shaped history. Human history in the West makes zero sense without the Book, which might help explain why our schools are in such a crisis.
Re: the Middle East -- 40 years ago I concluded that the nation-state of Israel is not an answer to a question or the solution to a problem. Instead, it is the physical manifestation of "the Jewish question" posed as a question: Who am I and what am I doing here? What should I be doing here? The answer seems as elusive as ever, so instead of trying to come up with a coherent one, the more popular option is to wipe out the people whose very existence is a reminder of the questions that so many people seem desperate to forget.
As for David Hume, he doesn't have the answer, either.
It depends on what you mean. To be wont to do something means you have the habit of doing it. It’s a bit archaic. “She was wont to take her tea at 4.” He took his tea at 4, as was his wont.
“To be want” with an a isn’t a construction I’ve ever seen before.
Wont and want sound exactly the same, they are homophones, depending on your accent of course.
I cut ties on a 40+ year friendship--and that still pains me deeply--because my former friend went deep into the antisemitism/anti-Zionism rabbit hole. And yes, in one of the conversations that preceded the end, she said that she had hadn't wanted to have the conversation because I knew too much. This from a PhD physicist.
(I had pushed for the conversation, she had tried to hide her beliefs. Why? To "protect me." Bullshit--it was to protect herself.
I am so sad to hear this. Another example of the tragedy of this conflict becoming an identity marker.
And, they question the facts if it does not support their emotional tirade
Absolutely!
A timely question and an enlightening answer, Daniel. … But what do you now tell the voters in a democracy? Should they still be allowed to publicly opine on the issues of the day via the ballot box? Or do you and David Hume think they should keep their ill-informed opinions to themselves?
Thanks Alan. Certainly they must vote as sovereignty resides in the people. However they must get their information from people they see as having genuine authority to opine. The moment that "prejudice" is shown they must ignore the view given. This is not about limiting the public right to decide. It is rather about training the public to identify charlatans.
"Must vote"... "must get"... "must ignore"... that's a lot of "musts"! :-) I'm afraid if you keep tugging on this particular thread, some rather important things begin to unravel.
I know a young man who is considering going to grad school to study public policy and international affairs. But he's hesitating partly because of a great divide: there's the world according to the books he'd read in grad school and the theories he'd be taught; then there's the world he sees emerging outside his front door. It's a world where most of those theories don't matter a bit. A world where "genuine authority" and the definition of charlatan have little impact on voters who have, according to you, "sovereignty."
You have an admirable respect for the facts, for the scientific method, and for experts. But man does not live on facts alone. And no amount of David Hume will provide the sustenance that many people clearly need.
All that said, I really enjoyed your essay. You ask exactly the right questions even though I don't always agree with your answers. :-)
The reality of life is difficult but if we are not even going to aim for a public with the will to research decent information what is the point of education?!
And on a separate point, the Middle Eastern debate which is highly adversarial encourages prejudice. And we love it! Hume and I are right to point this problem out. And history will vindicate the truth tellers just as it vindicates real artists.
I'm all for education, but education about exactly what? ... I'm about to type something I never could have imagined 40 years ago, but here it is: Public education (in the United States) should include the Bible. Not as holy scripture or as the gospel truth(s), but as a Book that has demonstrably shaped history. Human history in the West makes zero sense without the Book, which might help explain why our schools are in such a crisis.
Re: the Middle East -- 40 years ago I concluded that the nation-state of Israel is not an answer to a question or the solution to a problem. Instead, it is the physical manifestation of "the Jewish question" posed as a question: Who am I and what am I doing here? What should I be doing here? The answer seems as elusive as ever, so instead of trying to come up with a coherent one, the more popular option is to wipe out the people whose very existence is a reminder of the questions that so many people seem desperate to forget.
As for David Hume, he doesn't have the answer, either.
I am want or wont?
You learn something everyday. Is the correct spelling "wont"?
It depends on what you mean. To be wont to do something means you have the habit of doing it. It’s a bit archaic. “She was wont to take her tea at 4.” He took his tea at 4, as was his wont.
“To be want” with an a isn’t a construction I’ve ever seen before.
Wont and want sound exactly the same, they are homophones, depending on your accent of course.
Then it's wont that I want! Archaic - or literary - is what I was aiming for.
David Hume was a genius.
The memory will never leave me. You know too much!!