Log in

Togo of Grand Smials
.... .: .:::. .:.:..

Favorite Sites:
Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche's site -
My ''Gnodal'' Journal
My (dusty) Buddhism pages
Blogs (dusty, dusty, dusty!!)

November 2013
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Togo of Grand Smials [userpic]
Academics, you know? snooty ... arrogant ...

Bullshit. Social stereoptypes are just that. (When I talk about yuppies I'm blowing off steam about a group that deserves to be whipped with their own fancy spaggetti.)

From the guy who edited the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Ted Honderich:


Between about 20,000 and 90,000 civilian deaths have resulted so far from our war in Iraq and its inevitable aftermath. Blair and Bush justify these deaths. They do so partly by the line of thinking that these deaths were not intended by them or our men. They did not intend to kill innocent people. They would have chosen to avoid it if this had been possible consistently with their goal.

This claim of rightness is moral nonsense. It is worse than that. It is moral viciousness."

Apres propos: pondering how Honderich is arguable the world's premiere philosopher of determinism, I wondered on how sophistry ("excuses") so frequently has a sour, caustic, bitter tone to it. Perhaps because the individual is a) dreading being exposed as a coward, and b) in denial concerning having actually and really made a choice.

We can produce explanations. We can, otherwise, produce rationalizations. But really, don't you think it's very sad (tragic?) that most folk are geared up to make good use of excuses? Sophistry ham-strings development; because we are fallible and our knowledge is limited we have a righteous need for explanations; excuses distract and mis-lead.

Cynicism concerning human nature and pessimism concerning our future ... pure poison.


Excuses and rationalizations both are rarely certain truth.

"Excuses and rationalizations both are rarely certain truth."
Neither are intended as or grounded in truth-telling. The gambit is aimed at something more immediately pragmatic i.e. some tactical gain (perhaps with an eye to an over-arching strategy) while, and this interests me as a vampire-hunter, flying the banner to discover who is "loyal) (i.e. member of the "in group") or not (whether a similarly cynical opponent or a truth-oriented trouble maker).

We consolidate our groups by testing the willingness of comrades to "bend the stick" to our benefit.