Philosophy in Space: We Hold This Fiction to Be True Star Trek

 

After all the adversities that we’ve encountered in our travels, the greatest adversary, it turns out, is ourselves–our capacity for the best and the worst. We still have much to learn about what’s up there, and what’s in here.

Thus says Captain Kirk, gesturing to his heart at the end.  This is in the final episode of Star Trek Continues.  I say THIS IS TRUE STAR TREK. This is Star Trek fiction the way it oughta be, even if the copyright holders don’t count STC as part of their canon. This is true Star Trek because it is PHILOSOPHY IN SPACE.

The point of Star Trek was never the cool spaceships, although they were cool. The point was to imitate Immanuel Kant and explore “the starry skies above and the moral law within”–to explore the universe while also exploring what it means to be human.

Star Trek, like Existentialism, is a humanism, even if I did say so myself.

Click here to see Kirk get philosophical:

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?”  I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    • #1
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    • #2
  3. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    • #3
  4. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    If it was Chesterton, it was piety and penitence and humility. Not seeing how that’s self-serving.

    • #4
  5. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    If it was Chesterton, it was piety and penitence and humility. Not seeing how that’s self-serving.

    Perhaps appropriate for religion then, but not much else.  Sorry I just don’t buy it.

    • #5
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    If it was Chesterton, it was piety and penitence and humility. Not seeing how that’s self-serving.

    Perhaps appropriate for religion then, . . .

    A good start!

    . . . but not much else. Sorry I just don’t buy it.

    In the last year, was the greater adversary some coronavirus, or was it human folly?

    • #6
  7. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    If it was Chesterton, it was piety and penitence and humility. Not seeing how that’s self-serving.

    Perhaps appropriate for religion then, . . .

    A good start!

    . . . but not much else. Sorry I just don’t buy it.

    In the last year, was the greater adversary some coronavirus, or was it human folly?

    One – just one – of the problems you run into with that method, is that maybe YOU believe it, but your opposition doesn’t.  They can easily use that against you, and easily win.

    • #7
  8. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us?” I always thought that was self-serving, navel-gazing drivel.

    Let’s first review who said that. My brain suggests Chesterton. Was it Chesterton?

    Doesn’t really matter to me if it was Chesterton, or Pogo.

    If it was Chesterton, it was piety and penitence and humility. Not seeing how that’s self-serving.

    Perhaps appropriate for religion then, . . .

    A good start!

    . . . but not much else. Sorry I just don’t buy it.

    In the last year, was the greater adversary some coronavirus, or was it human folly?

    One – just one – of the problems you run into with that method, is that maybe YOU believe it, but your opposition doesn’t. They can easily use that against you, and easily win.

    You’ve lost me.  What are you talking about–rhetoric?

    I was talking about the facts.  We can get to rhetoric after we get to the truth, can’t we?

    • #8
  9. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    This conversation is part of our Group Writing Series under the July 2021 Group Writing Theme: “We Hold These Truths (or Fictions).” We have plenty of open days left, so stop by now, our schedule and sign-up sheet awaits.

    Interested in Group Writing topics that came before? See the handy compendium of monthly themes. Check out links in the Group Writing Group. You can also join the group to get a notification when a new monthly theme is posted.

    • #9
  10. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    This conversation is part of our Group Writing Series under the July 2021 Group Writing Theme: “We Hold These Truths (or Fictions).” Stop by to sign up for the August theme: “A day in the life.”

    Interested in Group Writing topics that came before? See the handy compendium of monthly themes. Check out links in the Group Writing Group. You can also join the group to get a notification when a new monthly theme is posted.

    • #10