Introduction

I love to learn. This passion has been intermittantly lost throughout my life, but I hope that the scholarly sentiment I enjoy at this point will only intensify and broaden. Over the past two years I have been introduced to philosophy, economics, government, history and literature in a fashion that I had never before imagined. Much of the subject matter will be from the University of Chicago Great Books series as well as supplemental readings both current and classical. I also am reading U.S. history in an unusual way, using an fascinating source: The Annals of America, a compilation of historical original source documents published by Encyclopedia Britannica in a year-by-year manner. Current political thought will be explored and assumptions (mine and hopefully yours) will be questioned.

Ultimately I hope that this will be a location for dialogue; patient, yet sharp; tolerant, but not “politically correct”; opinionated, but not vitriolic. All political, religious, philosophical persuasions are welcome, as long as communications are conducted with respect (but no sugar-coating or getting offended).

I don’t have any political affiliation. I am truly an independent, voting both major political parties and minor parties also. My ideals and leanings will become obvious through the exploration, but rare are the principles and beliefs that are set in stone for me.

 I look forward to the dialoge. Challenge me and teach me as I hope to do for you.

6 Replies to “Introduction”

  1. I’m surprised that you have only rare principles and beliefs that are set in stone. Behold the shifting sands from which one may be driven by every wind and doctrine!

    Nice site. I hope you don’t get me addicted to blogging. That may be dangerous to all those who don’t agree with me 😉

  2. mocoloco,

    As you know, my principles and beliefs in religion are much more defined than they are in politics and philosophy. This experiment will convince you that you must come over to the left of John Birch 😉

  3. Additionally, what I mean by set in stone is something that I know absolutely to be true. That leaves a lot of information and opinion to be debated and discussed and ammended.

  4. You speak of those libs at the John Birch Society as if there is something wrong with them. Hmmm, weird philosophy to think there’s something way out there to the left of them besides that big black abyss. Ick.

    If religious principles are well defined, how does one divorce those principles and beliefs when discussing philosophy and politics? If, indeed, they are true enough principles to be set in stone, should they not apply everywhere? Or, is truth only truth on Sunday?

    Of course, speaking politically, if truth be truth always, then who left their principles in the closet, Mitt, or Harry?

    As you know, I don’t read philosophy books. I just sit on the sidelines and heckle those who do. It’s much more intellectually effortless that way. I did read the Thomas Jefferson Education while in Iraq. Very nice. I suppose that’s much of your impetus toward classical education.

    Ooh, I like this blogging thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *