Tuesday, September 21, 2004

To Clarify

This is an example of the reason I dislike the whole idea of academics, and especially philosophers, blogging politics in a partisan way. It's something of an extreme example of the corrosion of discourse; but I think this sort of corrosion is that to which such blogging tends. Political faction corrupts reason, and even when it does not corrupt reason, it corrupts communication of reasons. It's my romanticism: I like the idea of academics improving the quality of discourse rather than contributing to its decay. This is not to say, of course, that bloggers should never talk politics or come down firmly on one side of the question (academics could never improve the quality of a discourse in which they never participated). But political factiousness is the most sordid part of politics, and the part that needs to be kept firmly on a leash.

No comments:

Post a Comment

No anonymity (but consistent pseudonyms allowed). Abusive comments, especially directed toward other commenters, will be deleted; abusive commenters will be hunted down and shot. By posting a comment you agree to these terms and conditions.

Please understand that this weblog runs on a third-party comment system, not on Blogger's comment system. If you have come by way of a mobile device and can see this message, you may have landed on the Blogger comment page; your comments will only be shown on this page and not on the page most people will see, and it is much more likely that your comment will be missed (although I do occasionally check to make sure that no comments are being overlooked).