The Last Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln, in his “Second Inaugural Address” (1865), declares the Civil War to be at the fault of the South, and that as such, they can no longer do anything to stop it. Lincoln makes this declaration by subtly indicating that the Southern states willed the war as a result of their desire to destroy the Union, by stating outright that the cause of the war lay in the issues of slavery in the South, and finally, by stating that if the war is G-d’s will, they can do nothing but fight for what they believe in. Lincoln’s purpose is to make his people aware of the fact that the South is to blame for the war and to indicate to them that it is their duty to finish the war in order to be able to rebuild the country. His tone is calm, yet also almost regretful, as if he wishes they didn't have to fight anymore.

I think Lincoln’s Address is kind of funny, in a very morose sort of way. Lincoln is sick and tired of the South yelling and fighting with him all the time, so he just accepts the war as a fact and then piles all of the blame onto them. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with this, but I think what he said was appropriate for the occasion. The people didn’t want to hear anything more about friendly ties and country roots, they wanted to fight for their beliefs. Lincoln is basically sitting back and saying “Have at it, I’m done with this.” Accepting the war was the first step to finishing it. In regards to the actual meaning behind his words, I don’t think all of the blame should have been put on the South. Sure, they were acting like a rebellious teenager (“I don’t want to follow your dumb laws! I can do anything I want! So there!), but the North also had a part in starting the war. When the country was just beginning in the late 1700s, the North was the center of the country. It was where all government decisions were made. The South felt left out right from the beginning, which led to tensions that eventually turned into the Civil War. So, in my opinion, the blame should be split, maybe not equally, but split, between the North and the South.

"How to Live a Lie" is a Lie!

William Irwin, in his New York Times article “How to Live a Lie” (2015), asserts that our beliefs in G-d, objective morality, and free will are based on a philosophy called fictionalism. Irwin supports this assertion by using ideas from famous philosophers and specific examples to explain how we accept morality, G-d, and free will as being true, even though we inherently believe them to be untrue. Irwin intends to convince his readers that their beliefs are based on a system of accepting what they believe to be untrue, and thus teach them to believe that their faith in G-d, morality, and free will is ill-founded, though understandable, and should be challenged. The tone of the article is formal and educational, as well as a little pompous and forceful, as though Irwin expects his ideas to be accepted by everyone.  

While I certainly respect the work and research that was put into this article, I find that I wholeheartedly disagree with much of what Irwin says. His first suggestion, that morality is based on “moral fictionalism,” seems utterly ridiculous to me. He wants us to believe that though we accept statements like “stealing is wrong” to be true, we actually don’t believe it to be true at all. He claims that if we were pushed to give a theoretical answer to whether stealing is wrong, we would say no. But who on earth would say no?!?!? Of course we all believe inherently that stealing is wrong! Stealing is wrong! We are taught from a young age that taking something from someone else is not the right thing to do. Why? There are oodles of answers! It would make them upset, it isn’t polite, the list goes on and on. Is Irwin suggesting that people inherently don’t care about others’ feelings? How else could he say that we don’t actually think stealing is wrong???

Another major issue I have with his philosophy is his idea of free will. He seems to feel that no one feels that free will is actually possible. We only accept it as a possibility because it makes the world an easier place to live in. He gives the classic example that many use to prove free will doesn’t exist- “If God foresaw that I would order pasta, then was I really free to do otherwise, to order steak?” This question has irked me for SO LONG. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other! Just because G-d knows something is going to happen, that doesn’t mean that we didn’t make it happen. It’s like saying I went to the grocery store and bought some eggs, and my mom knew that I would buy eggs, and therefore, because she knew I would buy eggs, I didn’t have free will. What kind of crazy argument is that?? It has nothing to do with anything! Once I saw that argument, I couldn’t accept any more of what Irwin was saying, because it all seemed absurd to me. Aside from these two major flaws in his argument, I do agree with him about belief in G-d because I think many people accept the reality of G-d without actually believing in Him. But, for the rest of the article, I have to respectfully disagree with his claims.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/how-to-live-a-lie/?ref=opinion