Field Shift

If you've been following me for any length of time, if you've ever gotten an e-mail from me, etc., you know I'm a huge fan of C.S. Lewis, and of a particular quote that changed my life.

The quote is: “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” And every stupid internet fight, every bad comment flame I've ever gotten into has been in part due to that quote and what I considered to be a duty to respond to what I saw as bad philosophy.

There are at least two problems with this.

It means that I am always responding. I'm always on defense. I'm never the instigator, always reacting, on my heels, never on offense. If all you play is defense, you never score points.
It's a generally negative view of the world. If you spend all your time responding to bad philosophy, incorrect assumptions, groundless assertions, etc., that's where your focus goes. And soon everything is bad philosophy. And everything sucks.

So, I'm retiring from the “I must respond to that statement” club.

But I'm not retiring from answering bad philosophy. I'm redefining how I answer bad philosophy. Because there is a lot of it all around us. And it does require an answer.

But that answer doesn't have to be in comments, it doesn't have to be in response.

My answer can take the form of action. And it can take the form of art. It can and does take form of the way I treat other people in real life as well as in so-called “social” media. And it can take the form of offense.

Not offense in the sense of getting in someone's face and shouting at them, though I'm sure that there are people out there who can, do, and will take offense at what I consider to be good philosophy. But offense in the sense of actively being for something.

So, here's what I am for right now that bears mentioning.

I am for the individual making his or her own decisions.
I am for hard work. I am particularly, recently for Mike Rowe's SWEAT pledge.
I am for the right to practice my religion according to the dictates of my own conscience and allowing everyone else the same privilege – worship a sack of beans for all I care. I won't force you to change how or what you worship and so long as you don't try to force me to change how or what I worship, we'll get along fine here. I, myself, am a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as LDS or Mormons.
I am pro-human being in general. And I am specifically pro-men. That does not preclude me from being also pro-women. This is not a zero sum game where the gains of one must lead to the loss of the other and vice versa. Also note that I'm not “pro-MALE”, I am “pro-MEN” There is a difference.
I am for judging people on the basis of their own words and actions, and not on what everyone else says about them.
I am for good story. It is difficult to express HOW much I am for good story told well. This goes in conjunction with #4. If a book is talking about how much human beings in general suck, or how much a specific subset of human beings (perhaps defined by gender, perhaps defined by political belief) suck, then your book will be burned abandoned, removed from my e-reader, etc. An aside jibe is fine. More than that and I start filtering the author's name out of my reading.
I am for the traditional family. Mom, Dad, Kids. Too many families are missing a critical component of that. Yes, this is an ideal situation, and not all families are built that way. Understood. Accepted. That doesn't change that this is the ideal situation, and all things being equal, should be what is striven for.
I am for paying one's bills and living within one's means whether we're talking about individuals or governments. Borrowing money today that must be paid back later is sometimes necessary for specific things, but it's a plan doomed to failure if you're doing it to support a certain lifestyle.

That's a decent enough summary to begin with.