I don't have time to waste on this drivel. Well, maybe a little time. It is a clever bait.....
'We each live in a (ideal, by the way) pluralist society, and thus, therefore actually, each know, as a result, only a (tiny tiny) fragment of "the truth".'
A fragment of a fragment of a fragment, of the truth........
Yet, loyalty to our each respective fragment is good!
What larger truth could there ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be, in a fragment of truth?
Could the truth of the whole be somehow encased in the fragments, all of them, or only some of them, if so which fragments of truth contain a microcosm of the whole truth, and which do not, or none after all?
All fragmentary causes are good, and any fragmentary cause is good, if you feel loyal to it. All fragmentary causes you feel loyal to at any particular moment are good.
You can't shake a stick at all the causes invoking loyalty. There are many thousands.
The world is littered with them.
Being loyal to loyalty is rather like swearing an oath to kill death, as the young rioters in the Pardoner's Tale did.
Here Brooks is just badly squibbing others ostensibly smarter than he.
It would be child's play to pick at this tissue, but why bother, composed as it is with the likes of James, and especially Royce?
Perhaps a reference to the theological, rather than secular, origins of what is still called liberalism, since Brooks raises the bugbear of loyalty, in the abstract?
No comments:
Post a Comment