In the opening chapter, Becker demonstrates the reality of incommensurability not just between thinkers past and present, but between contemporaries whose assumptions and thought vary widely. He does so by offering the not-surprising view that:
[i]t often distresses me to find that an intimate friend of mine rejects one or other of these beliefs, even after I have laid before him all the relevant facts and have repeatedly retraced for his benefit the logical steps that out to convince a reasonable mind. It may happen . . . that he cannot refute my argument. No matter. Convinced against his will, he is of the same opinion still; and I realize at last that his mind is, unfortunately, not entirely open. Some perverse emotion, some deep-seated prejudice or unexamined preconception blinds him to the truth.(p.1)
Becker then moves on from the intramural quarrels of academe to discussion with, as his given examples, "politicians or preachers".
The argument soon falters for want of agreement. Facts which they accept as relevant we question or regard as negligible. Processes of reasoning which bring conviction to us they dismiss with perverse and casual leveity as academic. Before the night is well begun the discussion peters out. We see that it is useless to go on because their thought is vitiated, not merely on the surface by prejudices peculiar to tehm as individuals, but fundamentally by unconscious preconceptions that are common to all men of their profession.(p.2)
Becker then makes a third move, more salient to his general thesis, by offering the idea that, while these various debate-partners might disagree on certain issues, all might be agreed that it would be fascinating to sit and listen to some genius from history. He offers two examples: St. Thomas on natural law, and Machiavelli on the necessity for collective security and supranational organization as embodied in the promise of the then League of Nations. After quoting at length from the former's Summa Theologica and the latter's De monarchia, Becker comes to the bewildering conclusion, maybe not so much, eh?
Lightbulbs went off in my head (usually a dark and dismal place), and I realized the impasse at which I had arrived vis-a-vis recent debates and discussions here at my little, unpretentious blog. While I enjoy debate and discussion as much as the next person, I have grown tired of having to explain, over and over again, the same point. I thought that it was lack of clarity on my part. Or perhaps it was purposeful ignorance on the part of the person attempting to debate. In fact, we inhabit wholly different existential and intellectual universes, and my points are meaningless in the same way that St. Thomas' and Machiavelli's arguments are nonsensical to a contemporary person of letters - while we can follow the train of thought clearly enough (both are models of simplicity and clarity; the modern penchant for opacity had not yet entered intellectual discourse), we simply do not share the same assumptions or outlook on life, what Becker calls as the title of his first chapter, "Climates of Opinion". This is not only fair, but acceptable. THe problem, however, is that we end up running rhetorical circles around one another precisely because we each inhabit different worlds. I for one refuse to enteratin the acceptability of those other worlds, and they, for reasons of their own, refuse to accept my own. Fair enough. To save us all aggravation, I think it best that such debates should cease.
I am willing to debate and discuss with anyone who is willing to make the move to understand what it is I say here on its own terms. I refuse to deal with those who say, in a variety of ways, that what I say, think, and believe is nonsensical, erroneous, self-contradictory, or confusing. This blog is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by me to communicate my own struggles with both faith and politics. I am not attempting to teach anyone anything; I am merely stating my own views, and as I represent no one but myself, should be taken with as little salt as pssible. I am as likely to change my mind within a few days or weeks as I am to follow one path or another.
I am doing this to save us all aggravation. Anyone is welcome to come here, obviously, and post whatever comments they feel moved to make. No one should believe for one moment, however, that I feel obliged to either "rebut" or "debate" issues when it becomes clear to me that the person inviting such discussion either doesn't understand me, or refuses to understand me. I also have little patience any longer for ad hominem remarks, directed either at me or at other commenters. Please restrain yourselves in the future.
Am I being intolerant? Why, yes, I believe I am. That is only fair, because I am not a very tolerant person. I have limited resources of patience, time, energy, and thought, and am attempting to actually move forward (or at least move) and cannot take the time to repeat myself for those who simply refuse to get it. If that isn't acceptable, feel free to go elsewhere.
