I get mail from a mind not yet seduced by ideology...

...but it is definitely leaning in the wrong direction.

Responding to my swipe at the Chicken Littles of the left-fascist antique press and their allies from Big Pseudo-Science and Totalitarian, Inc.


Argus said...

Why do you think there's no global warming? I find the evidence convincing, but then again, I'm quite new to the subject.

Good blog, by the way.


Thank you for your kind words about my idiot blog.

The answer, my son, is blowing in the wind. (If only we had some real scientists willing to study the wind in peer-reviewed double-blind experiments...)

It is also here.


I was intrigued by this new correspondent, kiddies, so I went to Godspeed, Argus and found the following post:


I'm a latecomer to this, I know, but I've been wondering whether climate change is something that I could give my life to. I wonder whether I could make a difference in this field. Is this something that I could study and work to advocate? I am convinced that the world needs good people that are concerned with this issue. Why not me?

You can see the problem here, can't you kiddies? Citizen Argus is not talking about science, he's talking about advocacy, concern, making a difference, and giving one's life to a cause. These are political concepts. They have nothing to do with real science. Pseudo-science, on the other hand, is thoroughly political. Fyodor recommends the following book to help combat this tendency: The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. ("It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions..." )

Make no mistake. "Global warming" is a movement in search of the masses.

But I often wonder why I consider myself an environmentalist. Why is this something that I actually care about? It is because I am worried about the fate of the human race? Is it a humanitarian issue? Or is it an aesthetic issue?--Do I just want to maintain a beautiful world? Or is it even a spiritual issue?--Do I consider it is great affront to the gift of life for mankind to treat it the world, our home and our provider, with disrespect?

Men who cease to believe in God don't cease believing. They simply find something else in which to believe. (I apologize for the poor paraphrase of...Dostoyevsky?) Again, Argus' words suggest a political yearning, a need to belong to something greater than himself. Human, all too human. (I know that one is Nietzsche's.) Not a hint of science. Not a whiff.

I was extremely moved when I saw An Inconvenient Truth the other day. I've seen it twice now, and both times I came out of the film with a motivated, stimulated mindset. I wanted to act. I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to become involved in a serious way.

To help combat the efforts of totalitarians, left-fascists, leaders, nazis, commies, do-gooders, and others to manipulate other people's natural inclinations for their own nefarious ends, Fyodor recommends People of the Lie: the Hope For Healing Human Evil by M. Scott Peck.

But there are a few observations that must be made about this feeling, since I'm not sure the aftereffect that I felt was genuine. Did I really feel passionate about the cause, or do I just want to be part of the cause? I felt like Al Gore was explaining the ins and outs of a club that I hadn't yet joined, and I felt like I wanted to be part of this club. I felt like he was part of something special, and I came out of the movie wanting to be part of that something, and I wanted to be an important part of it, not just any part of it.

This makes me think Citizen Argus is smarter than the average bear, kiddies. His conscience seems to be prompting healthy skepticism despite his desire to swallow (sorry) The Gorehound's propaganda whole, as Argus' political beliefs (I assume) are compelling him to do. That, kiddies, is the first sign of the scientific method.

I think this is just a specific case of one of my most identifying traits: the desire to be renowned and celebrated, honored and declared a genius. I want to be involved with this issue, but I want to be on the top of the game. I wouldn't actively settle for anything less. While this is a positive thing when looked at from the traditional American mindset, it manifests a difficulty from a more moral/teleological/philosophical point of view. This is a facet of my overwhelming superiority complex (to utilize a hackneyed pop-psych phrase), a part of my character that I know is immutable. And I'm not sure this complex can be overcome, for when I try to overcome it, I end up reinforcing the motion. I try to be humble, I constantly try it. I truly do, but I do so knowingly, and I do so with an eye to improve myself, to try to become a better person. As I feel this humility rising up inside of me, I then begin to feel a sense of self-achievement, and then I feel a sense of superiority, and the cycle is thus iterated, and the humility means nothing.
There is nothing wrong with ambition, (A gift from God and, as such, good) as long as a man is a well-rounded gentleman. (For examples of what NOT to do with your ambition, Fyodor recommends the reading of History.) Of course, this battle between will and conscience is life-long and difficult. It is one of the things that makes us humans and not beasts.

As is evident from even a cursory look at my blog, I believe Catholicism is the best and safest way to solve this problem. But the important thing is to solve the problem and win the battle in favor of conscience. Why? Because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler (in descending order of number of millions of victims) chose their defective wills instead.

But this is, obviously, a larger issue. Perhaps this isn't even self-reflection, but, since this condition may be universal among us, it's simply reflection on the human condition, philosophical babble, not something to be discussed now.

True Philosophy [Aristotle: tên onomazomenên sophian peri ta procirc;ta aitia kai tas archas hupolambanousi pantes -- "All men consider philosophy as concerned with first causes and principles" (Metaph., I, i)] is not babble. Argus may be confused by the proliferation of philodoxy under which our modern age suffers. Fyodor recommends consideration of the following terms: will, defective will, properly informed conscience, obligation, empiricism, and power.

Could I make my life, make my career, out of an issue such as this one? Do I care about it enough to pursue it uniquely? Will I ever find something that I care about enough to pursue it uniquely?

Fyodor's bottom line advice? Never define yourself with things, kiddies. And always remember that what you do is NOT who you are.