Albert Ruesga unleashed. He has a PhD, I believe, from MIT in analytic philosophy and decades of experience as a philanthropic thought leader. In a think tank world, I can imagine Congress passing an act that subsidizes Albert to forgoe thinking, as farmers are paid sometimes to let their fields lie fallow. Sophistry is a joy for philosophers; they revel in it, as play. The difference, from think tank thinkers, is that a philosopher turns the sophistry into satire while the think tank thinker proffers it as truthy-enough as he or she heads to the pay window to collect the wages of shame.
As one satirist to another, I would only suggest to Albert that he keep his eye not just on the sophistry, but on the visage of the sophister. Satire is a moral tradition, a form of vigilante justice. It's success is determined not by scoring intellectual points alone but also by the moral reform of men and women like, well, whomever you wish to mention. We are in the business of salvation, Albert, saving those who would otherwise be damned from their own mouths.
In debating social policy with think tank thinkers. I recommend Enrique The Gay Philosopher as a model worth emulating. Wasn't it Nietzsche who wrote that philosophy is the gay science? Life is a masquerade. Maybe we could organize a Cake Walk at the Big House for Hudson? Then the poor might speak for themselves, if only in dumbshow.
Very nice words, Phil, and thanks also for the sound advice. I can't let go without comment the assertion that I'm a thought leader in philanthropy. It's an odd leader who leads nobody.
I'm thinking a great deal--perhaps too much--about your advice on the proper balance between satire and sophistry. In the post on Husock, I assumed his reaction to my suggestion (the reaction of any rational person) would be to balk. I figured that his rejoinder--if there were one--would take one of two direction: (1) "Here's a better idea for guaranteeing a flow of dollars to essential social services as government shrinks ...," or (2) "All you liberals ever do is take people's hard-earned money." Either way, I'd know if Mr. Husock was on the side of the angels or not. In other words: I couldn't assume my aim was "moral reform," as you put it, without knowing whether or not Mr. Husock really cared for the poor in this country. Tragically, I tried to score a rhetorical point in the post--this was my attempt to provoke a reaction, but my ego also broke through in the conceit. I agree that the best writing of this kind keeps ego in check.
Posted by: Albert Ruesga | March 26, 2006 at 08:22 PM
It was a fine post. How do we hold the mirror up to nature, to our own moral nature, how can we see ourselves in that light? Not easy. Perhaps art, sermon and satire, help us in that regard, though we always tend the see the mote in the other's eye more than the beam in our own. (Q: Was Jesus a satirist? Same effect, but more subtle, always problematizing the moral position from which his interloctors addressed him with their questions, jibes, and arguments.)
Posted by: Phil | March 27, 2006 at 07:15 PM