Aristotle famously remarks that everything which the law does not expressly permit is forbidden. Some people take this as showing how different the classical concept of liberty is from the modern one. For we say just the opposite: That everything which the law does not expressly forbid is permitted.
Nature exhibits organisms with one-chambered hearts, two-chambered hearts, three-chambered hearts, and four-chambered hearts.
A certain kind of thinker regards this as proof of Darwinism. See? First came the one-chambered heart, then the two, then the three, then the four.
“Nothing is objectively good for human beings; or at any rate, if anything is, there is no way to know.”
“Is that so? Then put your finger in this candle flame.”
“I’ll do no such thing!”
“Why not?”
“Because it would hurt, as you well know.”
“So?”
“So I don't like pain, all right?”
“Why don’t you?”
When I was a grad student and a nihilist, I perceived that my closest professors also held nihilist assumptions, but they didn’t draw nihilist conclusions. Of course this is still going on.
If you are a person of faith seeking admission to grad school, more power to you! But be sure that the persons whom you ask to write letters of recommendation for you exercise caution.
There are moments when I could imagine being a lexicographer. One of the most interesting stories of the last few centuries must be how rapturous intensity of feeling came to be regarded as a good thing rather than a bad one, and the terms we use to describe it became words of praise.
Can you suggest – for starters -- just one thing to read about contemporary religion clause jurisprudence? Have you written anything about it? And what did the Framers themselves mean by the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?
Here is more I’ve learned about blogging. If you missed the previous post, you can pick it up here.