@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:something has rendered you rather monotone and very narrow in your apparent interest or understanding of human affairs, and the associated political and economic conflicts that have dominated history for several millennia.
You've started your sermon but seemed to think it adequate to merely give the theme. You've announced this theme before, quite a few times, actually but then...you go home.
What I stated above seems clear enough to me. You have an unwavering and somewhat narrow focus on political commentary in which a few preconceptions appear to dominate nearly everything else, including the ideas that the motives of those whose positions you oppose are uniformly bad; their methods usually unsavory, and often illegal, while those of others you favor are either praised or unexamined. Favored political movements are presented as authentic and spontaneous while those you oppose are the manifestations of dark conspiracies ("movement conservatives" ), etc.
One with a solid background in human history, and the character of human nature so consistently evident in it, should look beyond that. The French have a good phrase that expresses some of this well;
Quote: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
a phrase used to express the immutability of central tendencies in human nature that remain evident in things, despite detailed and often superficial changes.
blatham wrote:
This is interesting in two ways. First, you seem to have the notion in your noggin that though I have set to a study of media issues over many years that this study provides me with no greater benefits in understanding the subject than you have acquired with no such level of study.
Some learn a great deal from a little experience: others don't. Some experts in narrow fields are fools in others; others acquire more wisdom from the same effort.
blatham wrote:Second, you also seem to hold that you've studied something in some greater depth than I (classical studies, I presume) and yet this study of yours benefits your understanding but I am deprived of knowledge and understanding. So that's a tad odd (perhaps particularly because there are few classical writers, Greek or Latin, I didn't study while at university).
Well, each of us has knowledge of what only he has studied, while our discourse here provides mutual impressions of what was learned, but only in the areas being discussed here. I attended Catholic (Jesuit) schools, went to the Naval Academy, completed Navy Flight Training and later Test Pilot Training, got an MS in Aeronautical Engineering and later a PhD in applied Physics. Finally a grim 18 months in Navy Nuclear Power training. I also learned to function in a variety of organizations, (carrier squadrons, large ships, and later corporations in the Engineering & Construction business). It appears we both read a great deal. My choices are a bit whimsical and far-ranging, though I do like history and biography, and, in the area of contemporary political commentary, my reading is much less than is yours.
blatham wrote: But let's get to the meat of things - your titled but unfleshed sermon. The sentence I quoted above suggests that you have hold of some eternal verities. Further, you seem to be suggesting that these are enough to sustain you or anyone in grasping modern affairs like, for example, the content of Fox or Limbaugh's radio show. We don't really know what you mean here because we just have your sermon's title...
Quote:human affairs, and the associated political and economic conflicts that have dominated history for several millennia
I believe I do understand some lasting truths, but not all of them: there is much I don't know or understand. That said, I believe I do have a fairly good BS detector. I don't think that Fox news and Limbach's Radio show are in any way sufficient for the understanding of current affairs: neither are CNN and MSNBC. I do believe there's much, much more to be gained from a study of the content of the political issues themselves rather than repeated opinion and commentary from articulate but often uncomprehending professional commentators. This is an important point on which we consistently differ.
blatham wrote: I sense there's some element in here of "things will always be the same, given 'human nature', so only fools might think to improve conditions". Perhaps you deem the US Constitution an act of fools? Perhaps you hold that a social safety net another such foolish goal? Maybe you hold that slavery, a fairly constant arrangement through the classical and later periods, is just the way things work, given human nature?
Well, I think you're on to something here, but you quickly flew off into hyperbole and absurdity. I think the U.S. Constitution was an act of some very wise men who understood the tumult of human affairs and deliberately created a government with the checks and balances needed to limit most excesses. I think that no one has as yet designed a universal "social safety net" that will work well under all conditions. Some, such as that in Venezuela don't work at all, while others such as those of Cuba or the former Soviet Empire came at a horrible price in freedom and general poverty & stagnation. I believe that human nature is sufficiently complex and human behavior sufficiently adaptable to confound any system imposed to organize it in detail, and that very few of the designers of such systems , including "safety nets", foresee the side effects of what they create. Evidence of this abounds.
