Once again, you assume as answered what is in question. Whatever you might take his "general thinking" to be, he calls 12+12=144 a proposition and nowhere does he claim that it is neither true or false.

Mathematics is certainly a part of our form of life and mathematics does have its language games, but this does not mean that mathematical propositions are neither true nor false. The bridge would collapse if the calculations are wrong. We would not have landed on the moon if the calculations were wrong. Building bridges and moon landings are part of our form of life, but unlike our form of life the mathematical propositions are not arbitrary or t.a matter of convention or agreement.

most philosophers use the term to refer to this kind of proposition (hinge, bedrock, foundational, basic, all mostly refer to the same thing). — Sam26

Your assumption that these are all terms referring to the same thing is questionable. The only thing that turns on bedrock, as Wittgenstein says, is the spade.

A hinge is not a foundation:

OC 152.

I do not explicitly learn the propositions that stand fast for me. I can discover them
subsequently like the axis around which a body rotates. This axis is not fixed in the sense that
anything holds it fast, but the movement around it determines its immobility.

Where does he make the claim that we do not dispute 12+12=144 but it is not true or false that 12+12=144?

Engineering calculations do not depend on lack of dispute.

The term 'hinge' occurs three times in On Certainty.

341. That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some
propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn.

343. But it isn't that the situation is like this: We just can't investigate everything, and for that reason we are forced to rest content with assumption. If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.

655. The mathematical proposition has, as it were officially, been given the stamp of
incontestability. I.e.: "Dispute about other things; this is immovable - it is a hinge on which your
dispute can turn."

The third is the only example explicitly called a hinge. It is both a proposition, and true.

Have you now reduced a historical question to an exegetical question? — Leontiskos

It is about the meaning of a term and how that meaning changed when interpreted by pagan ears. That change can be seen by looking at the relevant texts. This is a historical question.

The number of ex-Protestants in this thread is not coincidental. — Leontiskos

This is anachronistic.

Paul incorporates Jesus into the Hebrew Shema in places like 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. — Leontiskos

The passage makes a distinction between the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ. This distinction is not present in the Shema. In the Shema God is the Lord. If, as a Jew, Jesus recited the Shema he was not praying to himself. I seems highly likely that he would have been appalled to learn anyone would claim that the son is the father. That God is two and not one. The same goes for Paul.

the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4 — Leontiskos

An image is not the thing it is an image of. Your image in a picture or mirror is not you.

The passage says:

God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

(4:6)

All of mankind is God's image:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

(Genesis 1 :26)

the name of God in Philippians 2. — Leontiskos

Are you referring to this passage:

God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name

(9)?

God did not gave himself a name or exalt himself. The passage refers not to God himself but to Jesus.

Here again a distinction is made between God the Father and Jesus the Lord

You completely miss what is at issue in my criticism. Moral deliberation is not about accepting or abandoning or rejecting stipulated principles. It not not about moral principles.

You claimed that:

it is an inquiry into whether a justification for self-defense is consistent with certain axioms. — Leontiskos

It any of those so called axioms is abandoned or rejected then they are not axiomatic. This supports the claim that moral deliberation is not axiomatic.

The one who is engaged in the attempt to formulate and justify rules is not engaged in mere rule-following. — Leontiskos

Right! The attempt to formulate and justify rules is not based on rules. Or, in other words, moral deliberation must rest on something other than principles.

No, it is an inquiry into whether a justification for self-defense is consistent with certain axioms. — Leontiskos

These axioms are the moral principles stipulated in the OP. It is, then, not an inquiry into the justification of self-defense, but of self-defense under certain principles or axioms. Moral inquiry, however, is not limited by certain so called axioms. It includes the question of whether certain assumptions should be regarded as true. The three principles specified are not, as the OP calls them, "facts". They are assumptions that can and should be called into question.

When Bob Ross says:

Given the following stipulations, I am wondering if there is a way to salvage the principle of self-defense ... — Bob Ross

He gets it exactly backwards. The question is whether the stipulated claims can be salvaged in light of the need for self-defense. Calling "the principle of self-defense" into question too, is an indication of why moral deliberation based on principles that turn out to be questionable, as the three specified principles are, should be called into question.

Moral principles are part of moral deliberation, and thinking to them and through them is part of ethics. — Leontiskos

There is a difference between deliberating and rule following. There is a difference between an appeal to a moral principle and an ethics that has as its goal a system of principles. There are good reasons why many philosophers have abandoned rule based principles and returned to some form of virtue ethics.

The attempt to set up a comprehensive set of rule based principles must deal with exceptions and the need for further rules regarding exceptions. The set becomes more and more unwieldy as exceptions accrue and are compounded.

By analogy, there may be some useful principles to keep in mind when playing chess, but no set of rules that can tell you what to do in every situation. There are cases where following a genera rule will not lead to favorable results. Cases where the rule should not take precedence over other considerations, and no rule that covers when that is the case.

... if you think that inquiring into the rationale for justified self-defense is seeking "one-size-fits-all answers." — Leontiskos

It is not a matter of inquiring into the rationale for justified self-defense but, as the OP makes clear, of self-defense under the constriction of certain stipulated moral principles.

Thanks my friend. If I recall correctly we also discussed during this or another conversation the meaning of the kingdom being at hand. This can be taken to mean, as it often is, soon to be, but alternatively as already here, within our reach. Paul and his followers believed that the end was near, about to happen at any moment and that it was a cosmic or geo-political event, rather than a matter of personal transformation.

The picture is further complicated by differing beliefs in resurrection, whether this would be spiritual or physical. The Gospel of Thomas says nothing about resurrection. In addition, various notions regarding the messiah. Whether this was to be a victory of the Jews over their enemies or a new world order or personal salvation.

In any case, what is clear as that the OP's question about Christianity being false is ill-formed.

You think the establishment gives two shits about climate or pollution? — Tzeentch

The "establishment" is a nebulous term. There are elected and appointed officials who are active in their support on the environment. They are as much a part of the "establishment" as those who are indifferent or opposed. The "establishment" is not one side or the other.

Yes.

As I understand it, this was the genius of at least one strand of early Christianity guided by inspiration, the witnessing of the indwelling of spirit. It was all but destroyed by the Church Fathers. To this day it is vehemently denied by those Christians who desire to be led, to be told what to believe by other men claiming the mantle of divine authority.

You have mentioned before the Gospel of Thomas and the idea that the kingdom is within. If this is believed then, as the Church Fathers feared, one cannot be subject to their authority.

It should be obvious to anyone who understands what phronesis is that it involves thinking through ethical questions. Thinking through ethical questions, however, does not mean the attempt to find abstract, universalizable, one size fits all answers that can be appealed to in lieu of moral deliberation.

Why? — wonderer1

I think it is an important question, but do not think it is for the purpose you suggest.

I will address this generally, whether or not it applies in this case:

I think the reason is the desire to arrive at clear answers where none are available. It is, however, in my opinion, misdirected. Ethics is not a matter of discovering or inventing equations or formulas or exceptionless rules that can be applied to whatever situation that arises. It is, as Plato and Aristotle knew, a matter of phronesis, of good judgment. It is pragmatic, involves compromises, and may not yield agreed upon or totally satisfactory results. The desire for wisdom becomes foolishness when we attempt to abstract from the confusion and messiness of life.

Many more are under the impression that there are no good historical or theological reasons to hold that Mormons are not Christians. I hope your post was not yet another non sequitur argument for that idea. — Leontiskos

? I have not said anything about Mormons. I pointed to the early Jesus movement prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church and the First Council of Nicaea.

Paine was responding to Art48, and there is no evidence at all that he was limiting Christianity to Nicean or Chalcedonian Christianity. — Leontiskos

That is correct. I did not say or imply that the examples I pointed to are the only cases. I don't know how you would reach this conclusion. Yet another non sequitur argument!

it is a very late phenomenon for self-identified Christians to identify Jesus as a mere man. — Leontiskos

This is simply not true. This is why I pointed to the use of the term son in the Hebrew Bible. It is used many times both in the singular and plural. It often refers to kings and rulers and never means a god.

The plural can be found in Exodus:

Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, my firstborn.

(4:22)

All of the disputes among early Christians were about what sort of non-mere man Jesus was. — Leontiskos

As I said:

Under pagan influence the Hebrew בן (bên) came to take on different meanings. — Fooloso4

"Mere man" is ambiguous. The traditional Jewish notion of a messiah is a man not a deity. A man with a mission from God is still a man. An exception man is still a man. The disciples, Paul, and other Jewish followers did not believe that Jesus was a god.

In Paul we find the idea that resurrected bodies are "spiritual bodies", sōma pneumatikos. As a resurrected body Jesus would no longer be a physical body. This holds for all men who have been saved and will be resurrected. Not "mere men", but men none the less.

Looking over the vast range of what "Christianity" has come to mean for different persons over centuries of life, the common insistence amongst the different groups that only one way is correct has become more 'universal' than any particular set of creeds, liturgy, or view of the world reflected in each iteration. — Paine

It seems that many here are under the mistaken impression that Christianity is and always was monolithic. The Church Fathers were were perhaps the first to change what was a pluralistic movement into a unified Church with "official doctrines and practices. They never did quite succeed.

Early on it was believed that Jesus was a messianic rabbi, a son of God, not "The Son". Under pagan influence the Hebrew בן (bên) came to take on different meanings. The First Council of Nicaea attempted to settle the dispute over the nature or ontological status of Jesus. The controversy has never been resolved, but the majority of bishops backed by the emperor Constantine accepted the position that Jesus is homoousios, the same in essence as God. "Full God". Christians were and some still at divided on this question. Others believe that Jesus was deified, something others are also capable of becoming. Still others believe he was "just a man", but not just any man. And here we find various stories within Christianity of this man and his significance.

As I noted, if you want to start a new thread, I will participate. — T Clark

So, you attack Rorty and retreat. You make claims about poetry but will not say what you think is the proper use of the term poetry, It is not up to me to start a new thread so you can defend your unsubstantiated claims.

Would you say this is an advance in human thinking or is this too value laden? — Tom Storm

It certainly is a change but I am hesitant to call it an advance. What follows from this change? I don't think there is a single unified response to either believing or rejecting finitude.

This is an odd argument. We're not talking about how "poetry" was used was 2,500 years ago, we're talking about how it is used now. — T Clark

His extended use of the term extends back to the Greeks.

If might be helpful if you tell us how you think the term is proper used today.

I don't think poetry as it is currently understood is better than prose or any other art, but it's different. It does different things. It's clear Rorty doesn't get that. — T Clark

In the short piece you referenced Rorty says:

I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact, that only verse can achieve.

What does he get wrong here?

I think what he wrote speaks for itself. — T Clark

Its ability to speak and our ability to listen are two different things. He does not:

explains it away as nothing significantly different from other types of intellectual endeavor. — T Clark

What makes it significantly different is that these writers:

invented new language games for us to play

This is a tip of his hat to Wittgenstein who said:

Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry.

(Culture and Value)

Many (most?) people today don't "acknowledge our finitude." I'm not even sure what that means. — T Clark

If we are to allow what he says to speak for itself, we need to get what he said right.

What he says is (emphasis added):

We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude.

Far fewer people today believe in an afterlife. Whether or not one does, we are able to question such assumptions freely in the West.

I think we've gone outside the intended scope of this thread. — T Clark

As to the scope of this thread, from the OP:

I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy. — Amity

As with many threads the scope expands. I am addressing your attack on and what I take to be your misunderstanding of this little piece by Rorty.

While I agree with the need for judicial change I think the blame for the current blatant judicial activism rests squarely on McConnell, Trump, and the Federalist Society. Project 2025, written largely by Trump's people, will take things much further if he is elected.

I think Rorty's explanation of poetry shows he has no real grasp of how it works or what it does. — T Clark

His use of the extended sense of poetry is in line with the way the term was used prior to its modern restrictive sense. Poetry comes from the Greek term poiesis ποίησις. It means to make.They were makers of images, of stories, of what he calls the "paths of the imagination". They were the principle educators of the Greeks. The makers of the puppets that cast shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.

Modern translators must make the choice to render their works in verse or prose.

This is so arrogant and pompous - to claim that we are, that he is, somehow intellectually and spiritually more advanced than Plato and Aristotle (or for me, Lao Tzu). — T Clark

Rorty does not claim that we are intellectually and spiritually more advanced. Perhaps there are other reasons why Plato was not able to acknowledge our finitude.

In the Apology Socrates acknowledges the possibility of our finitude.

... to be dead is one of two things: either the dead person is nothing and has no perception of anything, or [death] happens to be, as it is said, a change and a relocation or the soul from this place here to another place.

(40c).

In the Phaedo and elsewhere, however, rather than acknowledging our finitude he tells stories of the afterlife, obscuring the possibility of our finitude. This was not because of a limit of Plato's intellectual or spiritual abilities, but a limit of what could in his time be freely acknowledged. Rorty argues that things had changed by the time of Shelley.

Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable. It undermines the moral claim and cedes its ground to choice.

This is not to say I oppose choice, but rather oppose the choice being made one way or another by someone other than the individual.

In a very important sense consciousness is the hinge of existence (to use Wittgensteinian language). Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. — Sam26

According to you hinges:

...are just very basic kinds of beliefs within our forms of life. — Sam26

In that case existence is a belief. Outside our forms of life then nothing exists. The problem with this kind of idealism is that the idealist must exist. The idealist's existence cannot be dependent on her idealism.

Naturalism is the view that all that exists is the natural world that is perceived with, but exists independently of, our senses or tools which extend them. — Lee Smolin

Temporal Naturalism

... consciousness as the first-person ground of experience is not an objective phenomenon — Wayfarer

My experience is not yours but this is not a good reason to doubt that other people are conscious. Anesthesiology has developed into a science with generally reliable results, even though it is not the anesthesiologist who is being anesthetized. Brain mapping continues to become more and more predictive of what someone will experience when certain regions are stimulated or what is lost when damage occurs to a region.

It has a considerable bearing on the issue. — Wayfarer

Human understanding is not fixed and unchanging. The limits early modern science are well known and are not a permanent limit to present and future science.

It is assumed as a matter of course that if they're not objectively demonstrable, then they can only have a subjective reality. — Wayfarer

Let's put aside talk of objectivity and subjectivity and consider the problem of gullibility. On what basis are we to accept various claims? Surely, you do not believe every claim you hear.

I'm not providing a theory about that, only pointing out an alternative. — Wayfarer

So, there is no theory of how brains generate consciousness and no theory of an alternative either. The appeal to an alternative seems to be based on a desire for meaning that transcends human meaning. It seems as if you have lost sight of the human dimension by setting your sights beyond man. As if human life in all its dimensions is not enough, that true meaning must lie elsewhere.

But there is no theory of 'how brains generate consciousness' — Wayfarer

Once again:

Throughout history, time after time, claims of the supernatural as the only viable "explanation" for a wide variety of phenomena have given way to natural, rational, demonstrable, transmissible scientific knowledge. — Fooloso4

Cognitive science is a new interdisciplinary science. The fact that it has not yet developed a generally accepted theory hardly serves as evidence that it cannot or will not.

Mind (or consciousness) is causal, a latent drive towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness which manifests as organic life. — Wayfarer

This is an assertion not a theory is the sense in which you fault science for lacking.

It's true that Buddhism doesn't teach in terms of 'higher self' but they don't deny the reality of rebirth. — Wayfarer

That may be, but an appeal to a Buddhist teaching does not resolve the objections raised against Sam's claims.

What I'm getting at there, is the division that arises in early modern science ... — Wayfarer

Some of us are quite familiar with this well rehearsed story, but it is not what is at issue in this thread.

Hey guys, I'm struck by how many fairly prominent seeming republicans are speaking at the DNC. Is that a normal thing in your politics? — unenlightened

What makes this so extraordinary is that Republicans under Trump regard Democrats as the enemy and do not dare cross party lines. If Trump loses we are much more likely to see Republicans return to the idea, if not the practice, up putting country before party.

That is only a re-statement of beliefs that have been pretty well universal at one time or another throughout history. — Wayfarer

Right, the same assumption that in one form or another underlies:

the division between object and subject — Wayfarer

much of science. The point, however, is that for Sam there is a distinct, enduring, imperishable "higher self". Perhaps I am wrong, but this does not seem to square with your understanding of the:

principle of no-self (anatta) — Wayfarer

What if, from the very earliest stirrings of organic existence, organic life is the means by which consciousness painstakingly takes form? — Wayfarer

It sounds like you have gone over to the dark side! Non-reductive materialism. Consciousness is dependent on the existence of organisms. Organisms in turn is dependent on the inorganic material necessary for plant life. In a word, naturalism.

But it does assume the division between object and subject ... — Wayfarer

Sam's claim that:

... we survive death as individuals, but we return to our true nature, which is not human. — Sam26

and:

Our identity is not in this avatar (so to speak) but is connected with our higher self — Sam26

is that there is a self distinct from the body.Out of body experience is not the experience of a non-differentiated, generalized consciousness but the experience of an individual subject.

And there certainly is such a stance as dogmatic scientism — Wayfarer

Science and scientism are not the same.

for physicalism, the laws of physics are both immutable and fundamental. — Wayfarer

There are several different issues here that you have lumped together. First, physicalism is a broad term that does not identify a single agreed upon set of claims. Second, there is the question of whether a distinction is being made between the laws of nature and the laws of physics.Third, immutability is not a settled issue.

The theoretical physicist Lee Smolin challenges this assumption. Rather than timeless laws, Smolin holds that time is prior to laws. In a paper "Temporal Naturalism: Time and Laws in Cosmology"
he quotes Paul Dirac:

At the beginning of time the laws of Nature were probably very different from what they are now. Thus, we should consider the laws of Nature as continually changing with the epoch, instead of as holding uniformly throughout space-time.

and Richard Feynman:

The only field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is physics. Here are the laws, we say,...but how did they get that way, in time?...So, it might turn out that they are not the same [laws] all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary, question.

But the problem is, the 'human dimension' was explicitly eliminated from the scientific image of man in the early modern period. — Wayfarer

Science does not operate according to unchanging truths and immutable doctrines.

Hans Jonas anticipates many of the ideas of autopoesis and systems science — Wayfarer

And this is entirely natural. A rejection of reductive materialism is not a rejection of naturalism. Jonas' naturalism owes much to Aristotle's.

Jonas sees metabolism as the building and perpetuation of a self-distinct unity. — Wayfarer

Aristotle's term for this is entelecheia. Joe Sachs translates this: being at work staying the same. It is descriptive of physis or nature.

I am not beginning with moral principles with respect to my ethical theory: I am a virtue ethicist. — Bob Ross

Whatever your moral principles may be, in this thread you are beginning with moral principles. In addition, virtue ethics is often cited as an alternative to principle based ethics.

the assumption of naturalism, that life arises from the self-assembly of chemical constituents — Wayfarer

It is not as if one day there are chemical constituents and the next that they have assembled themselves to form "life". There is not even a clear borderline between living and non-living, as can be seen in the case of viruses. The root of this problem is conceptual. Both in the categorical sense of the way we divide things in the world and our inability to conceive how life emerges.

The Phenomenon of Life, Hans Jonas. — Wayfarer

Yes. I have read Jonas, but it has been many years. If I remember correctly, I agree with the idea that we should not lose sight of the human dimension of scientific inquiry. The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of nature.

Throughout history, time after time, claims of the supernatural as the only viable "explanation" for a wide variety of phenomena have given way to natural, rational, demonstrable, transmissible scientific knowledge. This is not to say that we will eventually have a complete explanation of everything, but it does suggest that based on prior examples the appeal to supernatural because we do not have a natural explanation seems unconvincing.

Everyone who adheres to an ethical theory imports principles into any moral conversation. — Bob Ross

Treating questionable stipulations as if they are established moral foundations can only lead to the collapse of the edifice.

There is a difference between a principle and a moral principle. Those who begin with ethical theory based on moral principles begin, in my opinion, at the wrong end, as if where the inquiry might lead has already been determined before we begin.

An unknown – unknowable – mystery (re: "intelligence behind the universe") doesn't explain anything because answering with a mystery only begs the question of how/why of anything. — 180 Proof

I agree. What needs to be examined is a) the assumption that there must be an agent, whether personal or impersonal, and b) the illusion that having posited an agent that we have done more than simply assert this assumption as if it were an explanation. Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries.

If you stipulated different moral principles then you might come to the opposite conclusion. This demonstrates the futility and impotence of moral deliberation based on stipulated conditions.

I thought the Fed was apolitical and does whatever it wanted? — Mr Bee

Trump has made it clear that if he is elected it will have to answer to him.

The fundamental reason for believing in the permanence of the soul is the desire for it to be so.

Though Euthyphro's account of his just action in prosecuting his father seems odd to me. — Ludwig V

The question of whether Euthyphro acted justly is not answered directly in the dialogue, but I think it is clear that he was not the expert on piety and the gods that he professed to be. Based on the stories of the quarrels between the gods it seems that they too are unable to distinguish between justice and injustice. The proper relationship between civic piety, familial piety, and piety to the gods, remains unresolved.

Yes, the Crito is certainly a warning to law-makers, and enforcers. It does seem a bit odd that Socrates doesn't show any sign of concluding that rebellion against unjust laws is justified. — Ludwig V

The political upheaval of that time casts a shadow over the question of one's allegiance to the city and its laws. With regime change the identity of the city becomes problematic. The regime of the Thirty Tyrants, installed into power after the defeat of the Athenians by the Spartans, although short-lived, made changes to the laws and constitution. During that time Athens was no longer a democracy. To what extent was it still Athens?

Socrates played the long game, he was not involved with active politics, and instead looked to the future, to the youth, to the reform of law, and more moderately phronesis. The question remains to this day, what is to be after rebellion.

My question is: why did his accusers (as shown in the title) accuse him. — NocturnalRuminator

It is a matter of political expediency. In many ways analogous to politicians today who are beholden to the Religious Right attacking "woke culture", a term that is used so broadly as to apply to such things as the National Weather Service and their attempt to dismantle it, equal rights, and reproductive rights.

The story of his divine mission in Plato's Apology and the reaction of people whose ignorance he exposed is, presumably, meant to refute the charge of asebeia. — Ludwig V

The irony of this should not be missed. In heeding his daimonion the question arises as to the extent to which Socrates was guided by the gods of the city. On the porch of the court before his trail he has a chance encounter with Euthyphro, a self-professed expert on piety. Socrates questions him about what piety is. Euthyphro says that by doing what the gods do he is acting piously. He assumed that by imitating Zeus, “the best and most just of the gods” (5e) that he too will be doing what is best and most just. The question of what is pious is then connected to the question of what is best and just.

As the dialogue progresses two things become clear: the actions of the gods as told in the myths are often unjust, and, to be just is to be pious. The first is an impious truth in so far as claiming that the gods could be unjust is impious. The second places justice above the gods. So, in one sense Socrates was guilty of impiety, but if being pious requires being just then Socrates, by heeding his daimonion, was just.

This relates to the change of corrupting the youth. Socrates undermines the authority of the gods and the ancient ways. In doing so, he leaves the youth adrift. This is a key to his obedience to the law. By his actions, rather than by argument, he acknowledges the authority of the laws of the city. This serves as a guide to the youth. It leaves open, however, the question of whether the law is in all cases just. This is the question of the Crito. What is at issue is larger than what one old man should do. One might flee, but there is a lesson here for the next generation of law-makers, both those involved in politics and those interested political philosophy, that is, those who preserve the law and who make and uphold just laws. The latter is not possible without the former.

What are your thoughts about the current state of the GOP? — Shawn

The current state of the GOP is that it perished under the onslaught of Trumpism. It bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or Reagan.