Argumentum ad Populum Meum

The genuflection at the altar of right thinking orthodoxy is a feature of blog communication. You must assure those who take all of a minute to read your post that your heart is in the right place and moreover that you are not likely to cause hurt and dismay to your tender readers.

Instead of conducting such a careful and thoughtful inquiry in to the nature of our egos, it seems the culture of philosophy is intent on imitating the Catholic priesthood, and having a competition to see who is the best at pointing the finger of blame and shame etc. The evidence might inform us that 2,000 years of such blaming and shaming has not cured us of the urge to say inconvenient words, nor our passion for claiming the all important fantasy victim status when we voluntarily read those words.

(from:
epithets comment )

I’ve always felt that it is the business of swamis, priests, muftis, and monks to give witness by their words and deeds to the core teachings that they confess. If they stay silent they are dammed for cosy temporisers, if vocal, dismissed as interfering in the inward workings of private conscience.

Philosophers are being urged not to follow their idle prating but this futility has not been demonstrated. In fact a mild acquaintance with history would indicate a contrary view. How was slavery brought to an end if not by the agitation of Quakers and Evangelicals?

There’s no argument here, merely the waving of a little priestcraft pennant. It makes palatable the self contradictory ‘you’re all going to hell in a handcart’ lesson which follows. On the contrary both priests and philosophers should speak up. Cry fire if there is a fire and clear the building.