Archive for February, 2014

Newer Entries »

Hoyt Defies the Empire of Lies

Posted February 14, 2014 By John C Wright

On the feast day of St. Catherine de Ricci, an Incorruptable, Feb 13, Sarah A Hoyt has penned a fascinating piece on the decision to speak the truth while dwelling in the Empire of Lies: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/02/13/and-shame-the-devil/

To speak or not to speak?

Imagine that you are in a situation where everything you hear around you, all the points of accepted truth are carefully manufactured from above.  From your own experience, from the things you’ve seen yourself, you know that they’re not true.

Can you say anything?

Of course you can’t.  People will think you’re crazy.  In fact, you might start thinking you’re crazy yourself.

For years I seesawed on this point.  I knew that there were things I’d seen, things I’d lived through that no one in the US would believe if told (I imagine it’s much like someone who is for a democratic government in the Arab world now trying to tell the truth in the US about the Arab Spring.  Even with blogs, unless he’s very lucky, people will think he’s crazy or a supporter of a repressive regime.  Because everyone they hear about the Arab Spring tells them how chocolatesprinklesawesome it was.  And how it was populist and pro-democracy.) Heck, most people in Portugal, save the few who’d been there with me would believe it. And even SOME of those had gone into believing in the official version.  Because it’s easier.  Because then you don’t feel crazy.  And even if you can’t bring yourself to believe in it, you talk as if you do, in public, because you don’t want anyone to think you’re crazy.

This subtle disconnect followed me to the US, where I found that to get ahead in life you needed to be as far left as you could be, or at least make noises like you were, and yet where every single TV show and TV report and book and magazine shouted that the left was downtrodden and the right firmly in control of government and everything else.  Oh, and the rich were all right wing.  (Guys, for those people who are my age, this was never the truth.  Not even in Europe.  The rich are more likely to be extreme left.  And it’s not guilt.  It’s that they know what is the end result of communism:  a sort of techno feudalism. They want that.  In its end stage, communism is a complete reversal of the anti-nobility revolutions of the eighteenth century.  And that’s why the upper classes support it.  By their fruits, etc, as a wise man once said.)

By all means read the whole thing. Read the remainder of this entry »

13 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies, Musings, Only Posting a Link

HASTEN FORTH AND PURCHASE JUDGE OF AGES

Posted February 14, 2014 By John C Wright

Having been puzzled and annoyed by the less than stellar review eructated by Kirkus for JUDGE OF AGES, I thought it only fair to give the opposing point of view by someone more qualified to have an opinion, our own Deiseach. What follows is an intermediate review (written before she reached the end of the book) and then a final review:

Dear Mr Wright, I go off-topic to express my delight with “Judge of Ages”, the most recent volume of the “Count to a Trillion” series.

I am still only half-way through it, and I spent my time reading equally divided between laughter and “WHAT????”

I can certainly say I never saw the plot convolutions coming.

Menelaus is as wonderful as ever :-)

I definitely see the family resemblance between him and Scipio, though I fear I may be racking up the time in Purgatory between the pair of them and their oaths as I’m mentally voicing them as I read – as Chaucer says in “The Parson’s Tale”:

For cristes
Sake, ne swereth nat so synfully in dismembrynge
of crist by soule, herte, bones, and
Body.

Though I am glad to apprehend Menelaus’ tasteful restraint – indeed, more than 2% of the interior of the Earth would be ostentatious and over-the-top :-)

Dear Sir Guiden: were you not already a happily true-married man, I would be throwing myself at you. There were tears and smiles as I read Oenoe’s account of how she fell in love with her husband.

Dear Mickey the Witch: as a person of a spherical contour of bodily form myself, I appreciate the cunning use to which you put your superfluity of tissue. Also, I agree: the best way to sum up what Menelaus and his opponents are doing is “magic” ;-)

I’m probably way off here, but did I detect the slightest hint of jealousy in Exarchel about Menelaus giving Mickey a nickname? Almost as if it/he were thinking “I’m the only one he gives a nickname! I’m his Blackie!”

Good grief: between the double-, triple- and quadruple-backstabbing and intrigue, and the fact that Menelaus planned most or all of this, I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen next, and I love every minute of it.

Also! You are making me like your characters! Soorm is charming, if one can say that of a Hormagaunt (licking up the brains and all), and dash my wig, if Reyes y Pastor died in defence of the Blessed Sacrament, I’ll have to pray for his soul. I already like Ximen much too much. And Illiance was already the best of a bad lot, so what you did with him – grrr, can a girl not have at least one villain to boo and hiss?

Can I please assume (not yet having come to the end of the book) that Naar at least comes to a sticky end? I don’t like Naar one bit, and if he reforms and all, I don’t know what I’ll do with myself.

Finally, I appreciate your use of language. The names you give the Hermeticists (and others) are beautiful; they may be villains and rogues and traitors to humanity, but they have such absolutely lovely names: Sarmento i Illa d’Or is a scoundrel, but his name is gorgeous to say and to see. Read the remainder of this entry »

107 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Crowing, Fancies

THE HOBBIT: The Desolation of Tolkien

Posted February 11, 2014 By John C Wright

I loved the first Hobbit movie and hated, hated, hated the second. It was stupid on every level of stupidity. It is rightly to be called THE DESOLATION OF TOLKIEN.

Before swan-diving into the sewer of total stupidity that is the DESOLATION movie, my intractable Southern courtesy requires that I say something good about this movie. Well, as it happens, there was not just one thing good about this movie, there were three: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, and Richard Armitage. They played their parts so well, that I feel I have met the real Gandalf, Bilbo and Thorin.

Sylvester McCoy did his best with what he was given, but the movie maker put bird poop in his hair. Which is not, come to think of it, so very different from what the movie maker did to us, his audience. This was to make Rhadaghast the Brown, the divine and august Istari who journeyed from the Blessed Lands beyond the Uttermost West to aid Middle Earth in its dark hour, to be as silly-looking a human whoopee cushion as possible.

On to what I hated with a nerdrageous passion that knows no sense of proportion: let us start at the beginning.

Read the remainder of this entry »

122 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Fancies, Reviews

A message from the Beautiful and Talented Mrs. Wright

Posted February 11, 2014 By John C Wright

I was asked to write a Story Behind the Story article for my novel PROSPERO REGAINED. I had great fun doing it and the site loved it.

Should any of you wish to read it, here is the link:

http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/story-behind-prospero-regained-by-l-jagi-lamplighter

1 Comment. Join the Conversation
Filed in Other

Question for the Readers

Posted February 11, 2014 By John C Wright

Someone has asked me to submit some of the essays I have written here at my journal site for publication. I am a little at a loss, since I am not sure what is good and what is forgettable.

To any loyal reader with an opinion, therefore, allow me to solicit it. I’d like your help to make the decision. I have ten years of material here. Which essays stuck in your mind? Which do you think should be published?

(And maybe we can have a professional editor go through and correct the spelling errors…)

I am not sure what the book will be called. Probably something like ALARUMS AND CONVERSIONS, but in my personal opinion the title should be something calculated to boost sales, such as HARRY POTTER AND THE SPARKLY VAMPIRES OF DUNE.

 

38 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Blogbegging

Restless Heart of Darkness — Part Four

Posted February 9, 2014 By John C Wright

The final installment of an essay where one of the great mysteries of the modern age is illumined.

Perhaps, like me, you have wondered how it is that so many people, otherwise honest, can adopt without demur the Orwellian anti-language of Political Correctness; how it is that so many people, otherwise rational, can adopt without demur the paradoxes, self-contradictions and logical absurdities involved in relativistic morality, materialistic ontology, subjective epistemology, and the other nuggets of vacuous blither forming the foundations of modern thought; how it is that so many people, otherwise possessing good taste, can without demur fund and support and praise the blurry aberrations of modern art, praise ugliness, despise beauty; how it is that so many people, otherwise good and peaceful, can praise and support and excuse the hellish enormities and mass murders of figures like Che and Mao and Stalin and Castro; or can view with cold eye the piles of tiny corpses heaped outside abortion mills, and make such enemies of the human race into heroes; or can rush to the defense of Mohammedan terrorists with freakish shrieks of ‘Islamophobia!’ and ‘Racist!’ even though to be wary of Jihadists bent on your destruction is rational rather than phobic, and even thought Mohammedanism is a religion, not a race; how otherwise happy, moral, reasonable and decent people can not merely excuse sexual perversion, but will be swept up in a fervor of righteous indignation even if someone points out the biological or Biblical reality of the situation; and likewise excuse lies in their leaders, and adulteries, and abuses of power, and abuses of drugs, and any number of things these otherwise ordinary people would never do themselves.

And, finally, Perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation.   Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?

As I said in a previous essay, I had an insight into the answer, or part of the answer, into this question.  It is an answer which I do not pretend is original, but which I happened never to have seen before, so it is new to me.

Read the remainder of this entry »

50 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Restless Heart of Darkness

Modern Feudalism

Posted February 7, 2014 By John C Wright

A reader labeled Tenkev writes:

I agree with much of this essay; but, I would like to point out an area where I disagree; or, rather, which you left out of you analysis.

As you pointed out, two of the main causes of poverty are unchastity and gluttony. Surely you are correct in this. There are also laziness, excessive risk-taking, lack of foresight, gullibility and foolishness. But it is not enough to say that most poverty is caused by sin and character flaws. We are responsible for our brothers in all their imperfection.

I think the problem is not that men are not capable of providing labor equal to the wage necessary to raise a family; as you say, most able-bodied men are; but, rather, that they are incapable of managing the rest of their lives. As the proverb says, a fool and his money are quickly departed. This is especially true today with the failure of modern culture to guide our lives reasonably.

The problem I see with our modern economic/political structure is the assumed absolute sovereignty for every-non criminal person. With maximum liberty comes maximum responsibility, and there is a great mass of people who cannot handle this level of responsibility. Not every man is noble. There is nothing shameful in admitting this. It is a fact of life. Now it is extremely important not to take this fact too far; but, it is also important to recognize it and plan for it. This means developing a hierarchical structure of power similar to a feudal power architecture; where those prone to foolish decision making have a loving, paternal, individual authority to guide their decisions (in a limited scope) and with this authority comes a responsibility for care in tough times and a claim to a small share of the labor in normal times.

My comment: It has been a long time since I have heard anyone make an argument in favor of hierarchical feudalism. I salute you for your boldness.

I am a Virginian, and so find myself in deep mistrust to any man who would place one class of man above another for any reason. Sic semper tyrannis, and all that, ya’ll. The only king to which we gentlemen of Virginia will ever bow is one that walks on water. Be damned to any man who says he is born my better, and be me damned if I say any man is born my lesser.

And yet… Read the remainder of this entry »

72 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Nepotism of the Spirit

Posted February 6, 2014 By John C Wright

A reader asks:

Dear Mr. Wright,

I read something today which made me think of you.

“”No Catholic, therefore, can regard with indifference a state of affairs in which work is considered a commodity and the worker merely as a “hand,” and not, as he primarily is, an immortal soul. He must want those conditions to be changed into something Christian.” The Cross and the Plough, Vol. 4 1938

Now I wonder what you, with your well known and thorough-going contempt for those who ignore or disregard the laws of economics, or attempt to legislate them away, make of the Church’s social teaching. As you know, the Church has a rather well developed teaching which goes back centuries, but is best realized in the great encyclicals beginning with Rerum Novarum and continuing with Quadragesimo Anno and Centesimus Annus. Recently you joined in hooting at calls for just wages, discoursing rather extensively on the folly of minimum wage laws rather than on the more pertinent question of justice.

I wonder if you would, with your copious spare time (ha ha), address this matter on your blog.

Read the remainder of this entry »

36 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Therefore “Ae” Will Be Used, or, Overcoming the Binary Gender Assumptions in Science Fiction

Posted February 5, 2014 By John C Wright

For those of you concerned with the recent discussion over at the Tor Books website, I wanted to weigh in on the nondiscussion of the noncontroversy the postrational postmoderns were having with themselves, I assume in a safely padded room.

The fires of reform have let fall a spark upon wood which they perhaps find sadly dank, and the furious wind of words is attempting bravely to blow on an idea with no merit that arouses no interest in the reading public: and so far the idea has burst into no particular blaze.

Namely, the reform proposed is that readers should change their assumptions so that assuming the human race comes only in two sexes would no longer be the standard, default assumption. We should suffer a moment of surprise and worried shock if ever again we read a story where the human characters fall neatly either into male and female categories.

Whether this assumption matches reality or not has been ruled beyond discussion.

One assumes the motive for such social reform is benevolent, based on the idea that those among us who are neither male nor female cannot feel sympathy with any characters outside our own sex. Or, worse, perhaps the assumption here is that one ought not feel sympathy for sexes or races outside one’s own, but have only partisan loyalty to one’s own identity-group.

If so, it is not benevolent at all in its outcome, no matter the intent, for it is the philosophy of xenophobia. It is the attempt to make it normal to judge all other men solely by their unintentional outward accidents, and to ignore that inward soul and character which makes us all equal. It is the attempt to undo centuries of progress in the areas of civic equality and Christian charity in one blow, and turn us all back into squabbling tribes severed by mutual hatred.

Whether such an idea catches fire, we shall see. But I wanted to contribute my bucket of water to the attempt:

Dear postmodern reformers, you are ninety-four years out of date.

In the seminal work of wonder known to mortals as VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS by David Lindsay, an author in every way more imaginative than any writer (myself included) writing today, effortlessly disposed of this issue, and in a fashion not even Ursula K LeGuin’s striking and imaginative LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS could match.

The comparison is, of course, slightly unfair, as LeGuin was writing science fiction (elevating the standard set for the genre as she did so) whereas David Lindsay was writing theological or theosophical speculation, a visionary delirium not bound by normal conventions of genre, story-telling, or any mundane rules or tropes.

It is worth quoting at length. This is from Chapter 16, ‘Leehallfae’. The earthman Maskull has been carried by an impossible vessel across the abyss of space to the giant planet Tormance, sole companion of the binary star Arcturus, either to bring new fire to man like Prometheus, or to die, or both. Abandoned by his companions, and having suffered many strange mutations both of body and outlook, and having committed appalling murders, he travels alone across the wild lands seeking a glimpse of the second sun, Alppain, whose weird colors form a spectrum unknown on Earth and indescribable, but whose light banishes all illusions:

A voice called out to him from behind, and, turning around, he saw a human figure hastening toward him from some distance down the ravine. It looked more like a man than a woman. He was rather tall, but nimble, and was clothed in a dark, frocklike garment that reached from the neck to below the knees. Around his head was rolled a turban. Maskull waited for him, and when he was nearer went a little way to meet him.

Then he experienced another surprise, for this person, although clearly a human being, was neither man nor woman, nor anything between the two, but was unmistakably of a third positive sex, which was remarkable to behold and difficult to understand. In order to translate into words the sexual impression produced in Maskull’s mind by the stranger’s physical aspect, it is necessary to coin a new pronoun, for none in earthly use would be applicable. Instead of “he,” “she,” or “it,” therefore “ae” will be used.

He found himself incapable of grasping at first why the bodily peculiarities of this being should strike him as springing from sex, and not from race, and yet there was no doubt about the fact itself. Body, face, and eyes were absolutely neither male nor female, but something quite different. Just as one can distinguish a man from a woman at the first glance by some indefinable difference of expression and atmospheres altogether apart from the contour of the figure, so the stranger was separated in appearance from both. As with men and women, the whole person expressed a latent sensuality, which gave body and face alike their peculiar character…. Maskull decided that it was love – but what love – love for whom? Read the remainder of this entry »

8 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies, Musings

Matt Walsh on the Unrealism of Casual Sex

Posted February 5, 2014 By John C Wright

A reader brought this gem to my attention. Someone should put it to music and make it our anthem as we drive the yahoos into the sea.

I will try to resist the temptation to quote the whole thing, so as to persuade you to read the original, but Mr Walsh has so many gems of truth and clarity, I must include them:

Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned

From my inbox, an email from a high school student named Jeremy:

“Dear Matt, first I want to say I really like your blog. One of my teachers actually mentioned it in class once after you wrote something (she didn’t mention it in a good way lol) and I went and looked you up so I’ve been following you ever since. I know you get so much email so I don’t expect you to see this but in case you do I wanted to get your opinion about something. You write a lot about relationships and everything so I’m wondering if you think abstinence should be encouraged in school?

“Reason I’m asking is because we are doing our sex ed lessons in health class now and the topic has come up. Yesterday my health teacher was talking about safe sex and someone mentioned abstinence and she said it wasn’t realistic. She said it was an out dated way of thinking and the people who push for it are out of touch because they were probably kids a long time ago. She said sometimes sex can be more casual and isn’t always a part of something serious. Then she asked how many people in the class are sexually active because she said it was important for people not to be ashamed. Almost all the guys in class raised their hands but I didn’t. They were all talking about how sex doesn’t have to be something for marriage or long term relationships. I always wanted to wait for marriage and I hope it’s not weird for me to say that. They said in class that we should be more accepting of sexual expression that doesn’t conform to older ideas. But I still always wanted to wait for marriage. But at this point I feel like an outcast or something.

“I read something you wrote about dating once and it seemed like you were saying that people should wait for marriage [to have sex]. What do you thinkabout what my teacher said? Am I weird for not really wanting to go out and hook up with girls and stuff and instead wait for marriage?”

Dear Jeremy,

Yes, it’s weird for you to want to wait until marriage. In spite of the hyper-sexualization of our culture; in spite of society’s decaying moral sensibility; in spite of all of the messages that bombard you every day through every available medium; in spite of the pressure from your classmates; in spite of the bullying from that fool of a “health teacher,” you STILL stand tall and resolve to save yourself for your future wife.

Man, that is weird. It’s also awesome, inspiring, courageous, and extraordinary. Not to mention, Jeremy, you’re doing the RIGHT thing. You’ve got more character than most adults in this country, and you should be commended for it.

Speaking of adults without character, please ignore everything your “health teacher” says on this subject.

Read the remainder of this entry »

10 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

Prayer request

Posted February 5, 2014 By John C Wright

A reader writes:

Hello everyone.
I apologize for posting off-topic but I need some help. My father Thomas Buckley has been hospitalized with what is either a large tissue infection, or an aggressive lung cancer. I’ve never spoken with a better group of people than on this blog, and any prayers on his and my mother’s behalf would be greatly appreciated. Thank you to all.

Merciful Lord, visit us in our time of need and affliction; and as you healed Jairus’ daughter and raised her from her bed of infirmity, visit your servant, Master, and deliver him from sickness and pain. For you alone have born the sickness and affliction of our world and with you nothing is impossible. For you are all-merciful and to you we ascribe glory and adoration forever. Amen

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Blogbegging

According to Hoyt

Posted February 3, 2014 By John C Wright

I strongly recommend this piece, which my fan (Hi, Nate!) pointed out to me:

http://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/02/02/to-fear-a-painted-devil/

The incomparable and luminous Sarah A Hoyt remarks on the recent and unsightly kerfluffle between Mr Hines and Mr Larry Correia:

The funny thing, though, is that they are not only completely ignorant about us, and so unaware of it that the dime never drops, but that these demonization cycles seem to be coming closer and closer and get more hysterical.

The next person who disagrees with them or pokes the tiniest bit of fun at them will be declared “worse than Hitler” and they’ll call for his hanging.

I think I know why. Part of the reason the episodes are coming closer together and getting crazier is that they’re losing power and they know it. They convinced an entire generation of women that Heinlein should not be read. This was because “all the right thinking people know that.” This is breaking. There are enough blogs, and enough of us female Heinlein fans ready to tell them they’re idiots and then describe exactly in what part of their anatomy their head is lodged.

With Resnick and Malzberg the backlash was faster and louder and even a lot of their number thought (privately) that they were off their rocker. With Card, I think only the choir thinks he’s “a fascist.”

And with Larry… There is no word for this. It’s like a Chihuahua trying to hold onto a car by the back bumper. They have not only bit off more than they can chew, they’ve bit off more than they can… bite. In tactical terms it’s getting involved in a landwar in Asia or going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

But wait, there’s more. The other reason they’re getting crazier and crazier and trying to enforce group conformity more and more is that they are no longer in possession of the bully pulpit.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.
Read the remainder of this entry »

83 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Other

I don’t personally support slavery, but I can’t tell you what to do with your own property

Posted February 3, 2014 By John C Wright

From the Pen of Matt Walsh: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/07/29/i-dont-personally-support-slavery-but-i-cant-tell-you-what-to-do-with-your-own-property/

I am repeating and linking to Matt Walsh, hoping you will read him. The words below are his.

*    *    *    *

A few days ago I made the point that every single argument commonly made in support of abortion is directly parallel to arguments people used to make in defense of slavery. Naturally, this assertion was met with outrage and indignation by a bunch of avid abortion fans. Strangely, not a single one of them could exactly explain WHY my point was invalid, instead opting to whine about it without proffering an actual response. For their benefit, I thought I’d take the time to fully flesh out the comparison between pro-slavers and “pro-choicers.” Behold.

Arguments commonly made in support of slavery and abortion:

Appeal to privacy: “Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone slavery, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own property?”
Appeal to privacy: “Well, I personally object to abortion, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own body?”

Appeal to the superseding right: “My property rights come before the rights of a slave.”
Appeal to the superseding right: “My reproductive rights come before the rights of a fetus.”

Appeal to popular sovereignty: “States can decide for themselves if they want slavery. If a state doesn’t like slavery, they don’t have to have it.”
Appeal to personal sovereignty: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” Read the remainder of this entry »

13 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Boiling a Frog

Posted February 2, 2014 By John C Wright

More from Bill Whittle
Read the remainder of this entry »

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

An Informal Logical Fallacy

Posted February 1, 2014 By John C Wright

There is a discussion about my Restless Heart of Darkness essay here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/religion-god-theology/restless-heart-darkness-essay-1411529/

One comment I thought unintentionally revealing was this one:

I think it is very ugly.

Its author main contention seems to be that some sort of intrinsic beauty is left behind in a constant stream of new ideas. He briefly mentions these as “natural emotions and passions, honest human sentiments, patriotism, gratitude, appreciation of beauty and everything that makes us human” (paraphrased).

However instead of going into detail about the beauty of these things, the author instead uses his relatively fair control over the English language to go on a misanthropic crusade where it seems like only a wafer-thin veneer of politeness is masking extreme contempt for anything he finds disagreeable.

I can’t shake the feeling that what is thinly veiled by might even be more than mere contempt, and perhaps even dangerously close to hatred.

I found this to be a very disturbing essay. If it is a work of fiction, an imaginary monologue, it is very well done. If it is not I think its author should seek professional help.

Note that when asked about the ideas in the essay, the commenter instead speculates on the mental state of the author, me.

Apparently the reason I am polite is not that I have respect even for those with whom I have deep disagreements, but because secretly, unbeknownst even to me, my heart is filled with malice and madness. Hmm. Does this model indeed fit all the facts in evidence, I wonder?

I submit that my mental state is best apprehended by attending to the words which said mind concocts to express the ideas it contemplates. To that end, allow me to quote myself:

Being without a sense of the objective nature of reality, they are without a belief in objective morals. Being without a belief in objective morals, they lack honor, and, lacking honor, they lack courage, lack decency, lack courtesy.

Hence, their one, sole and only means of discussing their principles in debate is to accuse whomever dares question them of any and every thing they think evil….

(Including mental disorder)

The content of the accusation does not matter, only the relief of being able to accuse, and accuse, and accuse.

I wonder at the gay and blithe unselfawareness, if not hubris, it requires to read an essay describing a error in logic or manners or morals, to disagree sharply with said essay, and, while writing up the disagreement, to commit the selfsame error being denounced, and ergo unintentionally giving weight to the very point one meant to dispute.

I will ask a question, which I mean sincerely: what does it say about a worldview that rests so entirely on one informal logical error that its partisans are never found outside that error?

26 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings
Newer Entries »