American Thinker: It’s often said that most of what the academic elites call “philosophy” is nothing but some underutilized minds worrying themselves about questions that common-sense folk find obvious. The saying came to mind as I listened recently to some of these folks straining to fit their various theories to the Age of Trump. More precisely, they were double-helixing themselves trying to explain why the amoral, relativist, truth-denying theories they’ve championed for so long are actually good reasons for hating the supposedly amoral, relativist, truth-defying current President.
Listening to this theorizing crystallized (at least for this initially reluctant Trump supporter) why President Trump is indispensable.
One of the philosophical exchanges concerned the allegedly inscrutable “problem of the self,” of explaining how we can say a human being remains the same person over time even though one’s physical cells are all lost and replaced many times throughout life. Yes, this actually can pose a conundrum, if you reject out of hand the existence of all supernatural entities including the soul and God, as the elites generally do.
This problem of the self raises moral issues. If you don’t know when a person’s selfhood begins or ends, how can you judge whether that person is moral or immoral? Sure, they say, Hitler slaughtered six million or so human beings, but wasn’t he also an animal lover who practiced vegetarianism and was kind to his pets?
I kid you not, nor do I exaggerate. The great minds of our age fret over this. How, they ask, could the genocidal fiend and the lover of little critters be one and the same “person”? And if they are not just one “person,” how do we determine which of them is which, and which one we should judge or repudiate? And, more generally, don’t most criminals have at least some decent traits? So how can we justly pass judgment upon or punish any of them? read more