16 October 2004
techniques for the avoidance of outwardly glittering misery
'But all good enterprises which are not grafted on to a morally good attitude of mind are nothing but illusion and outwardly glittering misery.' - Kant, 'Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose' (1784).
I am amused to be accused in recent posts of being mean about the world's richest religion (TM), especially as I'm the one always defending Catholicism in discussion with K-Punk, who really, really hates Catholicism with, ahem, a passion.
My work at the Catholic church and my complete adoration for many Catholic masses, coupled with my utter hatred of Catholicism's vitalist, sensualist aspects (plus my specific distaste for the alcoholic, womanising, violent Irish Catholicism that constitutes my corrupt genetic inheritance) is a problem of course - but what would anyone be without their contradictions....?
Anyway, my point is really this: surely there's a way of discussing and criticising the structural elements of various religions (or indeed philosophical positions, world-views etc.) that pays attention to their specificity, without simultaneously aiming for the immediate 'offence' of those who would call themselves 'Catholic', 'Muslim', 'Kantian' etc. It's far more offensive to defend people on their behalf ('would you really say this to a Catholic?'), and concomitantly expect a blanket 'respect' for all faiths/positions (which would of course handily cut short any further debate). Anyway, this is basic stuff, surely.
I am amused to be accused in recent posts of being mean about the world's richest religion (TM), especially as I'm the one always defending Catholicism in discussion with K-Punk, who really, really hates Catholicism with, ahem, a passion.
My work at the Catholic church and my complete adoration for many Catholic masses, coupled with my utter hatred of Catholicism's vitalist, sensualist aspects (plus my specific distaste for the alcoholic, womanising, violent Irish Catholicism that constitutes my corrupt genetic inheritance) is a problem of course - but what would anyone be without their contradictions....?
Anyway, my point is really this: surely there's a way of discussing and criticising the structural elements of various religions (or indeed philosophical positions, world-views etc.) that pays attention to their specificity, without simultaneously aiming for the immediate 'offence' of those who would call themselves 'Catholic', 'Muslim', 'Kantian' etc. It's far more offensive to defend people on their behalf ('would you really say this to a Catholic?'), and concomitantly expect a blanket 'respect' for all faiths/positions (which would of course handily cut short any further debate). Anyway, this is basic stuff, surely.
