“2/01/2010, 9:23pm EST”
re: that ridiculous Ashton Hill quote
Blogger adamalone felt I was off-base in my reaction to that horrible Ashton Hill quote. His thoughts in italics, with my responses in bold:
1. Yes, the above quotation (noun) is overindulgent and somewhat silly.
2. But, beginning your critique with sarcastic (ontological?) quips about ‘humanity’ and ‘sets’ does you no good when your main points are about narcissism and the results of poor self-understanding. “Sarcastic quips”? I don’t know where you’re coming from on that. In any case, I take very seriously the false and destructive notion that “humanity” is equivalent to “everyone.” For starters, this either ignores or denies the value and interests of all non-human beings. The quote certainly implies such a view, and I will combat it — or, as I did in my original response, at least point it out so that it is not presumed trivial or agreeable — whenever I encounter it. By the way, since when are “humanity” (in the original quote, even) and “set” banned words? And how does the proper use of words alone imply either Narcissism or poor self-awareness on the part of the speaker? I don’t see how it does. Most importantly, your comment to that end doesn’t contend with the actual points I made. It doesn’t defend the author from the charges leveled.
3. You confuse bad writing with bad thinking. A little charity (of the philosophical sort) would easily allow for the author’s point to come through - that we are shaped by our failures in important ways - without being muddled and torn by some ‘endless hilarity’ or wild guesses about cycles of self-love and hate. Sure, it’s a little ‘identity 101’, but it doesn’t need to be glossed over or hated on either. I’m not confusing bad writing with bad thinking at all (though I certainly believe this quote is an excellent example of each). It is not uncharitable to presume that the author’s written words represent the author’s thoughts. Indeed, it would be very weird to presume otherwise. Had the author actually expressed a defensible view via bad writing, my response would have been very different. While I agree that it’s good to be charitable in the philosophical sense, you give far too much charity when you distill Hill’s quote into: “We are shaped by our failures in important ways.” That barely begins to encompass what the author has expressed here — that is, that everything under the “humanity” umbrella is “beautiful,” and not, it certainly seems likely, just “beautiful” in a purely aesthetic sense. This somehow manages to be both a radical and far-reaching claim — also a radically stupid and presumptuous one — and a completely trivial claim, in the sense that the concept of “beauty” loses quite a bit of meaning and value when everything qualifies. And to be perfectly honest, I get as riled up about what this quote is actually saying as I do about the fact that people — well over 400 on Tumblr, apparently — believe this is not only a meaningful quote (linguistically and logically, which it isn’t), but that it is a wise set of notions (which it isn’t). It’s not fun for me to be so visibly reminded of the easy hubris that marks a species which prides itself on intellect but rarely develops or uses it — and when they do, it is very often to rationalize self-service and the exploitation of “others,” however defined.
4. Pick better fights. This is a rather low blow — one could say this to anyone who makes any point, irrespective of the point itself — and I won’t do it back to you. (But if I did want to play that game, I could say: “Who’s worse — the guy who picks a fight, or the guy who picks a fight with the first guy because he picked a fight?”) Hopefully you now understand why I believe this quote presents a fight worth picking.
By the way, I totally appreciate your willingness to engage with me here. It doesn’t happen often enough, that we are pushed to justify the things we say in a way that is more robust than simple declaration.
.png)
