I have been asked, many times, to explain my objections to John Locke and his theory of natural rights and the social contract. One way to address that question is the discussion of Sir Robert Filmer Patriarcha I undertook some years ago.
“So,” Charley said after a pause, “the purpose of art—at least in the sense that you are using the word—is not simply to have an effect on the audience or reader, even if the effect is good?”
The first thing our rulers do, when they want us to approve some act of folly or aggression, is to change names.
The best reason to follow Facebook is the insight it gives you into the American mind, especially the bizarre mind of self-described conservatives.
I am not a pacifist, but in my lifetime the US has not engaged in a war I could approve of.
A conservative on FB has made the plausible argument that Putin is not entitled to the Tsar’s patrimony, to which I responded:
Bossi begins his memoirs with a depressing visit back to Cassano Magnago: the highway cuts right through what had been parkland, cement houses have sprouted up like tumors, and everywhere is the sound of traffic, the smell of asphalt.
On FB I am forever seeing disputes breaking out over various theological points, disputes between Catholics and Protestants of course, but also between Tridentine and Vatican II Catholics and between various schools of Protestant thought (Lutheran, Calvinist, Pre-millennialist).
“This is all very well, if you are inclined to saints and mystics, but I thought we are trying to answer the simple question: Are movies art?
