Sunday, July 12, 2020
HARPER'S LETTER WOULD BROOKS FIGHT TO THE DEATH A LA VOLTAIRE FOR NEFF'S RIGHTS?
How about those in the Harper's Reply Letter ?
Would they?
They would slit Brooks' throat just after slitting Neff's.
Brooks' Enlightenment reminds of Voltaire's, a pseudo liberal Simon Says Religious Revolt against a relatively liberal Catholic Establishment and the Old European Order.
"In theory, the philosophers stood for the toleration of all beliefs and the free expression of all ideas. In fact, however, the situation was less simple. The philosophers were by no means willing to allow liberty to their opponents, not even to those who were far from representing the formidable power of the church. Their method was not often the mild persuasion favored by liberals. They talked much of reason, but their sharpest instruments were ridicule and vilification, which enabled them to throw off a man's arguments by defaming his character or belittling his intelligence. (See Boomerbuster FN in parentheses below.) La Baumelle went to jail, thanks partly to Voltaire whose works he had ventured to criticize. Freron, a conservative and Catholic journalist, was called by Voltaire, in a single work, a scribbler, scoundrel, toad, lizard, snake, spider, viper's tongue, crooked mind, heart of filth, doer of evil, rascal, impudent person, cowardly knave, spy, and hound. He found his journal gagged, his income halved and his career ruined by the concerted attacks of the philosophers. To silence him, at least two of the philosophers, Marmontel and d' Alembert, appealed to the censors whose very existence the enlightened thinkers are supposed to have abhorred. It is not possible, in short, to accept as characteristic of these thinkers the statement often attributed to Voltaire, that, though he disagreed with what a man said, he would fight to the death for his right to say it." Palmer, Catholics and Unbelievers, circa p 7. For Voltaire's intolerance, Palmer cites to the index under Voltaire's works (Paris 1883-1885), Chaumeix, Trublet, Larcher, Guenee, and especially Juifs.
(FN: Think, here, especially now, of 'the conscience of a liberal' Krugman, whose usual, and most effective, stock in trade has not been his wonkish, ostensibly reasonishness, but rather his shameless ad hominem mental aspersions (which I adore), as Niall Ferguson had complained bitterly about. Think also of Brooks, TLF, and the rest of the NYT enlightenment crewe. Boomerbuster)
"Popper’s hidden assumption that freedom of speech and thought will produce a better understanding of reality is valid only for the study of natural phenomena. Extending it to human affairs is part of what I have called the 'Enlightenment fallacy.'" Soros, in DK post.
No comments:
Post a Comment