For many years, I had been rationalizing that the story of Christ's resurrection, subsequent travels with his disciples, and eventual ascension into the great beyond was a deeply symbolic morality tale. I so wanted this to be true, as it was the only explanation of the post-crucifixion New Testament which made sense to me, but, alas, my childhood hopes were dashed. Knowing that I was supposed to actually believe this stuff was truly a stab through the heart, or someplace close to it, at the very least, because I could not even bring myself to pretend to.
Despite my mother trying her darnedest to raise me as a Roman Catholic, I simply never gelled with the Church, or its Tradition, or any of that. I always knew and was glad to hear that such things worked out well for some, but they just never did for me. My interest was always in embracing my family's deep Sephardic Jewish heritage; some of my fondest memories regarding personal religion involve chilly December nights in which I lit the candles affixed to my late paternal grandfather's centuries-old menorah.
Being honest with myself and others about my beliefs was a tremendously difficult thing to do; during my high school years, courtesy of my peers, I was exposed to some of the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable. Would it have been easier to live a lie, posing as something I fundamentally was not for the sake of missing out on some poor soul telling me in no uncertain terms that I was less than human due to my ethnoreligious background? Perhaps, but in the end, I would never have been able to forgive myself for this. Unless we are speaking of the mentally deranged, nobody respects a fraud or a hypocrite, and the worst kind of hatred is that of the self.
In my opinion, the most simple fact of life is the following; sooner or later, we have but only two options. The first is to accept reality about ourselves and the world around us, not envisioning either or as we wish them to be, but as they are, and the second is to retreat into an elaborate land of make-believe. The ideologue, whether he or she be interested in the fields of science, politics, religion, or all three, will always choose to voyage into a realm of his or her own creation due to an incapability to deal with especially challenging individuals, events, and objects. The open mind, meanwhile, will judge the situation at hand and, after careful consideration, take the most practical course of action. This might not be the most preferable, or popular choice, but he or she will not care as his or her mind is focused on finding long-term solutions as opposed to quick fixes.
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
"Escape From Fantasy: One Man's Journey Into the Real World"
Gee I thought this thread was going to be about someone who gave up frequenting BC and all other internet blogsites.
2 - Joseph Cotto
Arch,
Thank you for the welcome back! As I said when I last left off, professional obligations have kept me quite the busy bee. Thankfully, I have more time for Blogcritics now, so you most definitely will be seeing more of me around here in the near future.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Gee I thought this thread was going to be about someone who gave up frequenting BC and all other internet blogsites.
What does that say about you, then, Arch?
Joseph, good to see you back in the saddle. Your articles always make for good debate, possibly because I disagree with you most of the time!
4 - Joseph Cotto
Dr Dreadful,
It is indeed nice to be back. Life just was not the same without the ranting, raving, and sometimes civil discussions on Blogcritics Politics.
5 - Dr Dreadful
I understand that you don't like labels, Joseph, but what you've put your finger on here is the fundamental bifurcation between the "conservative" and "liberal" worldviews.
Conservatives are fond of portraying themselves as realists, arguing that as unequal and unjust as the world is, that's just the way things work: it's unfortunate, but we ought to accept it and make the best of it.
The kybosh can quite easily be put on that one by considering the truth that the human world of today bears very little resemblance to the world of 5,000, 1,000 or even 200 years ago.
Liberals reason that since we can identify what's unjust about the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to change it for the better.
Which is, in theory, true. They have, unfortunately, never been able to get everyone to agree as to what "better" looks like, nor do they often recognise that change tends to happen organically and that abrupt radical overhauls, such as turning Slavic serfdoms into giant communes, rarely turn out well.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
There's another general trait I'd assign to the conservatives, something I heard from Tea-Party-Terror Allan West:
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, then your tactics suck."
Think about that when it comes to voter suppression, James O'Keefe, Breitbart, and Eric Cantor.
Whereas we liberals tend to believe in a level playing field for all (hence Welfare, Head Start, and Affirmative Action), and this tendency makes us vulnerable to the tactics of those who cynically think fairness is a fool's dream.
7 - Joseph Cotto
Dr Dreadful,
You are absolutely correct about both conservatives and liberals perceiving reality in very different ways, and soon after coming to the conclusion that only they have the "correct" plan for fixing the problems at hand. As luck would have it, I was planning on addressing this very issue in my next piece.
Glenn,
I can honestly understand liberals wanting a level playing field for all, but who will be there to ensure that those leveling the field itself do not give either side an unfair advantage?
8 - Dr Dreadful
Joseph, I look forward to it.
Glenn, West's maxim is also sound military philosophy: don't get into a fight you don't think you can win.
Wonder if that's why conservatives tend to be pro-military while liberals tend to think that in an ideal world there would be no need for one?
9 - pablo
The author should go back to justifying torture, instead of pretending he is civilized.
10 - roger nowosielski
What's missing in Cotto's analysis -- there's no accounting of the emotional underpinnings of conservatism as well as liberalism alike. One could argue that the rational basis for deciding on either the conservative or the liberal point of view is, relatively speaking, delimited to a rather small segment of the population, those who aren't as directly (and emotionally) affected as others may be and who, for that very reason, are in a sense, above the fray. They're the preachers of the two secular religions, not members of the congregation.
11 - Joseph Cotto
pablo,
Harsh, harsh sentiments there. I never, as far as I can recall, justified torture as a first resort for interrogating terrorists. If you can find such an article of mine, though, do feel free to drop a link to it here. Perhaps I have come down with selective amnesia.
roger,
Funny you should mention emotionalism in politics. As this is merely the beginning of what will become a lengthy series of articles, that subject was already slated to be discussed down the line. Nonetheless, your take on ideologues is a very perceptive one which I am inclined to agree with.
12 - roger nowosielski
Well, that's a starting point, Joseph. I think we'd be all well served to realize that our little microcosm on BC is hardly representative of the population at large. We are in a manner of speaking, and whether we realize it or not, a kind of intellectual elite, the I and E need not be capitalized here.
I plan to do a movie review shortly I stumbled across recently, The Murder of Mary Phagan, which I think presents an excellent case study of the type of conservatism I have in mind, conservatism which is deeply rooted especially in the Southerners and which is not likely to simply wane because of modernity.
Perhaps we'll be able to share some ideas then.
13 - Joseph Cotto
roger,
Despite our widely varying opinions as Blogcritics, those of us who contribute here, by our very profession or hobby as serious writers, are indeed members of a small subset of society that has the capacity not only to analyze a situation, but put it into words and see those words picked apart by, for the most part, other well rounded individuals.
Indeed, when my piece on emotionalism in politics rolls around, some very interesting discussions will be had.