Karen, you have made such a long post! I am very impressed! ;-)
"I recall JLA arguing that what you and I call ideas weren't ideas at all but the essence of the person."
The "essence" of a person would constitute an essential component of permanence. Ideas, however, like clothing, may be changed. As an extreme (but very common) example, consider what would happen if you were to change your ideas about God and become a raging Christian. Would anyone here recognize you except for the tell-tale trail of Baltimore style cheesecake! I had to remind you of that, Karen.<gg>
"Ridicule, mocking, scorn, and contempt are also not constructive. What does it accomplish to communicate to someone that you look down on his religious beliefs, especially when he naturally interprets that as looking down on him? I understand the utility of contempt when faced with believers who sanctimoniously look down on you"
I agree with you in general on this. But it is a mistake to equate unconstructive with not nice...and vice versa. Ridicule is an effective means of emphasizing the barrenness or false nature of certain ideas.
Emotions are not our enemies. When emotions are provoked, it gives shape and substance to the ideas being challenged. Indeed, in a very real sense they are carriers of "proof". Ought we to forego the experience of Tristram Shandy, Rabelais, Swift, Voltaire, Ben Jonson, Wilde, or a hundred others because they were not always "nice"?
As I said, I do not object to the general principle of polite discourse. But any attempt to elevate the ridiculous to the sober and the serious is one that may be righteously opposed. As well, keep in mind that satire and irreverence are serious concerns. Ideas have consequences in action. Politely "discussing" (for instance) whether or not jews are vermin--is more than simply a parlour game.
To pretend that ugly and ridiculous ideas may even be considered is to give them initial credibility. Ridicule is a safer and more honest response to the inane and the grotesque. |
