L
Lucretius
Guest
When I read this quote by Joyce Carol Oates, I notice rationally how irrational it is: for example:
Now, that said, if what the author has in mind is “run by men” then she has to prove the standard she is referencing which claims that “men running the show” makes an organization a bad one. If what the author has in mind is “mean running the organization suppressing women” she has to define was she thinks the men are suppressing in women. If the Church suppresses “woman gaining power” then she obviously doesn’t understand the Catholic Church, or women. The Church is about love, not power: one can’t save their soul even with all the power in the world. And woman are much better at being the heart than men, which is why women didn’t have political power in ancient times. She didn’t want it. Who wants it? Only the wicked man it seems.
And how is “power” defined? I would say that one of the greatest powers of women is her fertility. She holds her child, and a man holds his sword. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the child trumps both, for it is the child that inherent the earth. And it is the mother who is the intercessory between the child and the world. The child is shown the world through the mother. The mother, to use the feminist language, controls what the child gains from the world, including his education, and it is those children that will eventually control the world. So, beware mothers; they control the world.
Of course, this makes no sense to the person who thinks a woman reaches her greatest potential by acting like a man, with his little wars, and his little governments, and his little philosophies. Who wants that when you can have the potential to bring and introduce an new life into the world?
I found this on a site who espouses “reason” over “irrationality,” yet this is the most irrational and anti-reason statements I have ever heard! The purpose of thought is to reach the answers; if thought is not about the answers, then what is thought about? And when a man finds the answers, don’t you think it is quite charitable for him to teach them to us? Don’t you think it a sin not to stand up say “Look, I have the answers?” If you aren’t looking for answers, you aren’t thinking: how can someone who doesn’t want to think be called “rational?”
Continued (the important part is next)…
Brainwash refers to teaching a person or people false information. The problem is that to say something is brainwash is to assume it is false. However, the author did not prove why Catholicism is false. If I were to say that biology teachers brainwash children with evolution, many of the atheist would jump up, shouting “it’s not brainwash! It’s true!” Yes, which is why such rhetoric assumes the doctrine being indoctrinated is false a priori. Thus, her rhetoric is meaningless, unless she establishes that the brainwashing teaching is in fact false. If it were true, as it is, then it is not brainwashing to teach it.
Define patriarchal. The problem with these terms is that they a often used in sentimental rhetoric, which means that they are often meaningless, and really are words that express an emotion to which the audience is to shout “ya!” or “boo!” to. In this case, “patriarchal” is a “boo!” word, and all the author is saying is “The churches, particularly the Catholic Church, is booooooooo!” which is not a rational argument, but the sound a whinny child makes when he doesn’t get what he wants.
Now, that said, if what the author has in mind is “run by men” then she has to prove the standard she is referencing which claims that “men running the show” makes an organization a bad one. If what the author has in mind is “mean running the organization suppressing women” she has to define was she thinks the men are suppressing in women. If the Church suppresses “woman gaining power” then she obviously doesn’t understand the Catholic Church, or women. The Church is about love, not power: one can’t save their soul even with all the power in the world. And woman are much better at being the heart than men, which is why women didn’t have political power in ancient times. She didn’t want it. Who wants it? Only the wicked man it seems.
And how is “power” defined? I would say that one of the greatest powers of women is her fertility. She holds her child, and a man holds his sword. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the child trumps both, for it is the child that inherent the earth. And it is the mother who is the intercessory between the child and the world. The child is shown the world through the mother. The mother, to use the feminist language, controls what the child gains from the world, including his education, and it is those children that will eventually control the world. So, beware mothers; they control the world.
Of course, this makes no sense to the person who thinks a woman reaches her greatest potential by acting like a man, with his little wars, and his little governments, and his little philosophies. Who wants that when you can have the potential to bring and introduce an new life into the world?
Great! So the people who actually have the answers won’t talk? How terrible for you and me
I found this on a site who espouses “reason” over “irrationality,” yet this is the most irrational and anti-reason statements I have ever heard! The purpose of thought is to reach the answers; if thought is not about the answers, then what is thought about? And when a man finds the answers, don’t you think it is quite charitable for him to teach them to us? Don’t you think it a sin not to stand up say “Look, I have the answers?” If you aren’t looking for answers, you aren’t thinking: how can someone who doesn’t want to think be called “rational?”First of all, I will point out that the Catholic Church is against astrology. Now, this author thinks that the Catholic Church is the peak of the worst, irrational religions ever, and I would defend contra her that the Catholic Church is one of the reasons she thinks reason is important. She obviously doesn’t know her religion at all: or she wouldn’t have made such a stupid comment. You can claim the Church is wrong, but she has had 2000 years to fine tune and argue for her teachings, so you can’t claim stupid unless you are ignorant or deceitful, which I believe the author is of the first category. I really don’t want to defend clear rationality of the Church here: just read Chesterton or St. Thomas if you want to see why Catholicism is the most reasonable doctrine in the world: cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html
Continued (the important part is next)…