And he’s interviewing the solemnly righteous for the position.
I’ve just read a Facebook exchange that revolved around how people scornful people were of the practice of the contentious argument…the idea of voicing opposition to any idea to make its supporters actually justify it.
Some of the Facebook replies indicated that people hated this practice. Others loathed it. A third group were not nearly as pleased with it as the first two…And one person courageously defended it. I suspect he has the right of it, wrong as it sounds.
As he pointed out, some ideas are universally indefensible. So don’t defend them. Some are universally lauded. So don’t laud them – no sense preaching to the choir. But some ideas are good and bad in a mixture, and you would be wise to look at all parts of the thing to see where the components are.
Nearly every philosophy and/or religion book deals with good and evil. To their credit, most seem to favour the first over the second. Once you pass to the next rack in the library – politics – there are far more combinations of the two in each volume. You have to read carefully and start to think about them.
In the Human Relations section you are reading dime novels and comic books – and the best thought is often at the end of the publications – the advertisements for selling White Clover leaf brand salve or greeting cards.
Kids! You can earn a bicycle!