Take Your Pick - War Against Christmas or Ignorance
Thank you John Gibson for taking a stand.
"[A] father asked the principal, 'What is that tree down the hall?' The principal beamed proudly. 'That is our friendship tree.' 'Why don't you call it what it is: a Christmas Tree?' the father asked. 'Oh, we're trying to make sure we don't offend people. It's better to call it a 'friendship tree,' the principal replied. Thinking back on the incident a few months later, the father took a grim satisfaction that he had changed the outlook of the principal of this expensive private school in the New York City suburbs. But not by argument or persuasion. 'I told him if that tree wasn't a Christmas tree tomorrow, I would be taking my son out of the school, and I would be making certain the other parents I know, who also pay tens of thousands of dollars to the school, would learn how their children were being taught incorrectly. We all know what a Christmas tree is, and I want my son to know what a Christmas tree is. I have no idea what a friendship tree is and I'm [quite] certain that principal didn't either." —John Gibson
From The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US). Make this great E-publication part of a happy, informed New Year. Go here to subscribe.
"[A] father asked the principal, 'What is that tree down the hall?' The principal beamed proudly. 'That is our friendship tree.' 'Why don't you call it what it is: a Christmas Tree?' the father asked. 'Oh, we're trying to make sure we don't offend people. It's better to call it a 'friendship tree,' the principal replied. Thinking back on the incident a few months later, the father took a grim satisfaction that he had changed the outlook of the principal of this expensive private school in the New York City suburbs. But not by argument or persuasion. 'I told him if that tree wasn't a Christmas tree tomorrow, I would be taking my son out of the school, and I would be making certain the other parents I know, who also pay tens of thousands of dollars to the school, would learn how their children were being taught incorrectly. We all know what a Christmas tree is, and I want my son to know what a Christmas tree is. I have no idea what a friendship tree is and I'm [quite] certain that principal didn't either." —John Gibson
From The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US). Make this great E-publication part of a happy, informed New Year. Go here to subscribe.
posted by BigBubba at 4:05 PM
![[Link to THOMAS Home Page]](http://thomas.loc.gov/images/link.gif)
9 Comments:
Plato, "Cratylus"...
Her. I should explain to you, Socrates, that our friend Cratylus has been arguing about names; he says that they are natural and not conventional; not a portion of the human voice which men agree to use; but that there is a truth or correctness in them, which is the same for Hellenes as for barbarians. Whereupon I ask him, whether his own name of Cratylus is a true name or not, and he answers "Yes." And Socrates? "Yes." Then every man's name, as I tell him, is that which he is called. To this he replies- "If all the world were to call you Hermogenes, that would not be your name." And when I am anxious to have a further explanation he is ironical and mysterious, and seems to imply that he has a notion of his own about the matter, if he would only tell, and could entirely convince me, if he chose to be intelligible. Tell me, Socrates, what this oracle means; or rather tell me, if you will be so good, what is your own view of the truth or correctness of names, which I would far sooner hear.
Socrates. Son of Hipponicus, there is an ancient saying, that "hard is the knowledge of the good." And the knowledge of names is a great part of knowledge. If I had not been poor, I might have heard the fifty-drachma course of the great Prodicus, which is a complete education in grammar and language- these are his own words- and then I should have been at once able to answer your question about the correctness of names. But, indeed, I have only heard the single drachma course, and therefore, I do not know the truth about such matters; I will, however, gladly assist you and Cratylus in the investigation of them. When he declares that your name is not really Hermogenes, I suspect that he is only making fun of you;- he means to say that you are no true son of Hermes, because you are always looking after a fortune and never in luck. But, as I was saying, there is a good deal of difficulty in this sort of knowledge, and therefore we had better leave the question open until we have heard both sides.
Her. I have often talked over this matter, both with Cratylus and others, and cannot convince myself that there is any principle of correctness in names other than convention and agreement; any name which you give, in my opinion, is the right one, and if you change that and give another, the new name is as correct as the old- we frequently change the names of our slaves, and the newly-imposed name is as good as the old: for there is no name given to anything by nature; all is convention and habit of the users;- such is my view. But if I am mistaken I shall be happy to hear and learn of Cratylus, or of any one else.
Soc. I dare say that you be right, Hermogenes: let us see;- Your meaning is, that the name of each thing is only that which anybody agrees to call it?
Her. That is my notion.
Soc. Whether the giver of the name be an individual or a city?
Her. Yes.
Soc. Well, now, let me take an instance;- suppose that I call a man a horse or a horse a man, you mean to say that a man will be rightly called a horse by me individually, and rightly called a man by the rest of the world; and a horse again would be rightly called a man by me and a horse by the world:- that is your meaning?
Her. He would, according to my view.
Soc. But how about truth, then? you would acknowledge that there is in words a true and a false?
Her. Certainly.
Soc. And there are true and false propositions?
Her. To be sure.
Soc. And a true proposition says that which is, and a false proposition says that which is not?
Her. Yes; what other answer is possible?
Soc. Then in a proposition there is a true and false?
Her. Certainly.
-FJ
More from "Cratylus"...
SOCRATES: Let me ask you, then, which did Homer think the more correct of the names given to Hector's son--Astyanax or Scamandrius?
HERMOGENES: I do not know.
SOCRATES: How would you answer, if you were asked whether the wise or the unwise are more likely to give correct names?
HERMOGENES: I should say the wise, of course.
SOCRATES: And are the men or the women of a city, taken as a class, the wiser?
HERMOGENES: I should say, the men.
SOCRATES: And Homer, as you know, says that the Trojan men called him Astyanax (king of the city); but if the men called him Astyanax, the other name of Scamandrius could only have been given to him by the women.
HERMOGENES: That may be inferred.
SOCRATES: And must not Homer have imagined the Trojans to be wiser than their wives?
HERMOGENES: To be sure.
SOCRATES: Then he must have thought Astyanax to be a more correct name for the boy than Scamandrius?
HERMOGENES: Clearly.
SOCRATES: And what is the reason of this? Let us consider:--does he not himself suggest a very good reason, when he says,
'For he alone defended their city and long walls'?
This appears to be a good reason for calling the son of the saviour king of the city which his father was saving, as Homer observes.
HERMOGENES: I see.
SOCRATES: Why, Hermogenes, I do not as yet see myself; and do you?
HERMOGENES: No, indeed; not I.
SOCRATES: But tell me, friend, did not Homer himself also give Hector his name?
HERMOGENES: What of that?
SOCRATES: The name appears to me to be very nearly the same as the name of Astyanax--both are Hellenic; and a king (anax) and a holder (ektor) have nearly the same meaning, and are both descriptive of a king; for a man is clearly the holder of that of which he is king; he rules, and owns, and holds it. But, perhaps, you may think that I am talking nonsense; and indeed I believe that I myself did not know what I meant when I imagined that I had found some indication of the opinion of Homer about the correctness of names.
HERMOGENES: I assure you that I think otherwise, and I believe you to be on the right track.
SOCRATES: There is reason, I think, in calling the lion's whelp a lion, and the foal of a horse a horse; I am speaking only of the ordinary course of nature, when an animal produces after his kind, and not of extraordinary births;--if contrary to nature a horse have a calf, then I should not call that a foal but a calf; nor do I call any inhuman birth a man, but only a natural birth. And the same may be said of trees and other things. Do you agree with me?
HERMOGENES: Yes, I agree.
SOCRATES: Very good. But you had better watch me and see that I do not play tricks with you. For on the same principle the son of a king is to be called a king.
and so today's $20,000 question is, which name was "more" naturally approriate for Hector's son... Astyanax or Scamandrius? and Why?
...and by extension, which name is more naturally appropriate, "Christmas" or "Friendship" tree?
-FJ
Hint...
HERMOGENES: And where does Homer say anything about names, and what does he say?
SOCRATES: He often speaks of them; notably and nobly in the places where he distinguishes the different names which Gods and men give to the same things. Does he not in these passages make a remarkable statement about the correctness of names? For the Gods must clearly be supposed to call things by their right and natural names; do you not think so?
HERMOGENES: Why, of course they call them rightly, if they call them at all. But to what are you referring?
SOCRATES: Do you not know what he says about the river in Troy who had a single combat with Hephaestus?
'Whom,' as he says, 'the Gods call Xanthus, and men call Scamander.'
HERMOGENES: I remember.
SOCRATES: Well, and about this river--to know that he ought to be called Xanthus and not Scamander--is not that a solemn lesson? Or about the bird which, as he says,
'The Gods call Chalcis, and men Cymindis:'
to be taught how much more correct the name Chalcis is than the name Cymindis--do you deem that a light matter? Or about Batieia and Myrina? (Compare Il. 'The hill which men call Batieia and the immortals the tomb of the sportive Myrina.') And there are many other observations of the same kind in Homer and other poets. Now, I think that this is beyond the understanding of you and me; but the names of Scamandrius and Astyanax, which he affirms to have been the names of Hector's son, are more within the range of human faculties, as I am disposed to think; and what the poet means by correctness may be more readily apprehended in that instance: you will remember I dare say the lines to which I refer?
-FJ
Some people would call a Christmas tree a "friendship tree." And some people would call intelligent design "science."
I would almost hesitate to make the bet, Mr. Ducky. Massachusetts has produced so many world class liars, like Hanoi John, you probably know something about liars and the lies they tell. The Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
believe John Gibson. Aren't you some sort of Catholic, Duck?
It would be a real coup if you could take one item out of Gibson's book and prove it wrong.
Answer to the $20K question...
After the Greek victory over Troy, Hector's son was no longer a "holder" (ektor)... he became much more like the river Scamander (which ran next to Troy)... Astaynax now "ran" and no longer occupied and "held" one place. He was, like the river, full of movement.
And so the once "firmly planted" Christ Mass tree has run away as well. It has been set adrift and replaced by a Friend Ship tree. But then the Christmas tree wasn't originally a Christian symbol....it was a pagan symbol "transformed".
So maybe the Friend Ship tree is a reversion to the more "natural" and godlike name (after passing through the Roman Saturnalia traditions and the Greek Dionysian traditions).
I'll even go out on an limb and speculate that the "Christmas" tree might have once started out as a thyrsus (A walking staff tipped with a pine cone and twined with ivy, carried by Dionysus, Dionysian revelers, and satyrs).
The Christmas tree like thrysus also reminds me of a kind of 1776 era liberty pole when capped with a "Liberty Cap" (vice pine cone). Sam Adams boys met around a "liberty tree" in Boston, but later revolutionaries simply gathered around liberty "poles".
Hmmmm Mercury once wore a similar cap... a travelling cap which perhaps if placed upon a pole might symbolize an intention to plant itself in the ground and stay put....just as the participants in the American Revolution once vowed to do.
I think I need to plant a "liberty tree". Oooops, I've already got one in front of my house. I think we call it a "flagpole" today.
Nevermind. I have no intentions of going anywhere. At least, not this Christmas.
So Merry Christmas to all, Bubba, mr. ducky, samwich, norm, and whoever else might drop by for a visit.
-FJ
Speaking of words normy, I wonder where the word science originated.
The word "con-science" seems to have the word science in it. Sen-tience also seems to have a form of the word science in it.
I wonder if science is enough for one to have a conscience.
But then, why would there be a separate word for the same thing? Have you ever "conned" a ship?
Science without religion seems to me like a ship without a rudder.
And since science seems to be somehow associated with "mind", I wonder if it has anything to do with "intelligence". I sure wish I could design a science that HAD a rudder.
Pipe dreams, I know.
-FJ
I wonder who mans the con of a friend ship tree. No man is my guess. The friends take turns acting as pilots, but I doubt they are true pilots
Plato, "Republic"
...perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering-- every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
Of course, said Adeimantus.
Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State; for you understand already.
Certainly.
Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
I will.
Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him--that is not the order of nature; neither are `the wise to go to the doors of the rich'--the ingenious author of this saying told a lie- but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
Precisely so, he said.
For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed.
Yes.
And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?
True.
Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
By all means.
I also doubt if they are truly friends.
-FJ
Post a Comment
<< Home