The Music in Noise

"If there were one million families praying the Rosary every day, the entire world would be saved." - Pope Saint Pius X

Be Radical - 2020-09-28

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Revelations 3:16

Generally I get along with any kind of person. But this isn't to say that some kind of people don't frustrate me, as someone who enjoys discussing topics such as politics, religion, sciences, etc. However, it isn't the person that disagrees with me that frustrates me, but rather the person that holds inconsistent opinions, and doesn't follow their own logic to its ultimate consequences. And there are these kinds of people on all sides of any argument - including my own.

This kind of problem usually occurs when speaking to someone on an issue relating to politics or religion. That is to say, anything pertaining to the management and governance of the public (i.e. politics). The issue in question here is not one where two positions the person may hold seem hypocritical, since this is acceptable so long as their reasoning can make them compatible. No, the error is when the reasoning itself changes based upon circumstances. When exceptions are made to the rules.

Typically, a person will make these kinds of exceptions in their own reasoning because they dislike following their own logic to its ultimate conclusion. They know that for certain cases their very own reasoning would lead them to support something they see as evil or immoral, or rule out something that is clearly good. So to compensate, they make exceptions based upon intuition.

The problem here isn't so much that people see a problem with their own logic, but that they make exceptions to it instead of realizing that if their reasoning leads them to error, their reasoning is erroneous itself. As such, is it truly that difficult to assume that many of their other conclusions based upon the same reasoning could also be false? It is not proven, but it is very likely.

Essentially, the error here comes from lack of radical belief. He who believes the wrong thing for the right reasons is much more righteous than he who believes the right thing for the wrong reasons. We must make an effort to bring our own reasoning to its logical conclusions, and when we discover what those are, we have one of two choices: accept where our reasoning has brought us, or reject our own reasoning. But to pretend that this inconsistency, this flaw does not exist, is simply to lie to ourselves and our conscience. For no truth can contradict itself.

As such, be either cold or hot, but detest that which is lukewarm. For at least he who is cold or hot may be correct, but he who is lukewarm will always be wrong.