Re: lead, kindly light...

AntiUtopia@aol.com
Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:14:24 -0400 (EDT) 

In a message dated 99-08-07 07:24:01 EDT, you write:

> Anyway, why all this demand for kindness?   It's frightfully bad 
>      for one.   The soul strengthens & flourishes in a chill climate.  
>      I'm sure my own cheerful equanimity is largely thanks to all 
>      the unkind treatment I've received over the years - not least 
>      on this list.  I'm endlessly grateful.
>  
>      Scottie B.

Interesting post, and you have a good point.  We DO make distinctions between 
**what kind of ideas** when we attack ideas without attacking people.  And, I 
don't know if you really intended to go in this direction, but it is an 
expression of a particular moral and value system -- your reference to the 
Christian "hate the sin, love the sinner" dictum is completely apropos.  

Yes, we would have a specific judgment about a person who sent anti-semitic 
posts to the list.  But we'd also try to avoid any type of judgment about the 
person posting little essays tracing the right hand/left hand imagery in 
Salinger -- even if we disagree with them.  That's because in our value 
system ideas about **people** are in a different category from ideas about 
**literature, science, philosophy, you name it.**  I would shorten this by 
saying there's a difference between our ideas about people and our ideas 
about ideas.  I realize this is a somewhat shallow statement, and once a 
person allies themselves with a particular school of thought (esp. if they do 
so with a passion) in any of the disciplines we do see that as being a bit 
closer to home.  Still, 
we do hold to that distinction.

I think it's a valid distinction.  Think about it. Have your ideas changed 
very much over the course of your life?  Of course, no matter who you are.  
But does that mean your value as a person has changed over the course of your 
life?  I don't think so, at any rate.  Most of the rest of us think so too -- 
especially about ourselves.  "Intolerance," the great sin in democracy, is 
specifically the product of valuing ideas over people.  

This is a description of our mindset.  It has a great many shortcomings, the 
greatest of which is that it isn't applied across the boards.  We think 
overt, committed racists are lesser human beings than those of us who aren't. 
 But that too is an example of valuing a person because of their ideas.  And 
I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail about how people heavily 
involved in politics tend to view those of the other party as "the enemy."  
Sometimes they are.  It's a natural human failing, and it's been observed for 
some time now that to have a coherent group you need to have not only 
members, but non-members, those outside or on the margins.  It's not uncommon 
that members and non-members are defined by their ideas.  This is true 
eerywhere from religious groups to academia, without fail.  

But, at any rate, the fact that we do, to some degree, make a distinction 
between people and ideas is a step in the right direction.  And yep, it's 
essentially a Christian value judgment.

Jim