Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains
You have a right to one whether you need it or not. And you have a right to one whether the right is constitutionally protected or not: 2A or not 2A, that is not the logically prior question.
But why would you need one? See here.
Top o' the Stack.
You don't need Twitter to tweet. You don't need X to X-press yourself. Isn't that cute?
Here is an important debate between Robert P. George and Yoram Hazony about free speech in regard to campus antisemitism.
Do not multiply enemies beyond necessity.
William of Ockham: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
William of Alhambra: Inimici non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Enemies are worse than friends are good. The enmity of the enemy is more to be feared than the friendship of the friend is to be desired. But show me a man with no enemies, and I'll show you a man with no character. We of the Coalition of the Sane and the Reasonable are distinguished by our enemies, in two senses of 'distinguish': we are set apart from them and we are set above them. A man is judged by the nature of his enemies — and by the nature of his friends.
We all know pollyannas. They are more often women than men and the charm of these lovable ladies is in no small measure due to their openness to the positive in people and things and their seeming incapacity to discern the negative and evil. A most extreme example has come to my attention, one
. . . Natali Yohanan, “a 38-year-old mother of two, who never locked the doors of her house in Nir Oz, a kibbutz near Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip. There wasn’t even a key.” And then: “On Oct. 7, a Gazan woman walked through Yohanan’s unlocked front door and made herself at home for hours, eating, singing, and watching Netflix. Sometimes, the woman served drinks to armed terrorists who stopped by for a break from the massacre they were conducting outside.” Ms. Yohanan speaks of the impact of 10/7 on her in the 10-minute video below.
Watch the video and then ask yourself the question that I ask myself: how could an adult Israeli be so naïve, so trusting, so lacking in insight into human nature? The woman is not stupid; how then explain this blind spot? At one point Yohanan, a teacher, says that all children are good. Plainly false! Has this teacher never been on a schoolyard? Children can be vicious in a way that no animal can be vicious. That is why they need to be socialized and, yes, indoctrinated, but in correct and ameliorative doctrines. (That 'indoctrination' is a dirty word is another piece of stupidity that you are well-advised in dropping.)
Yohanan is an Israeli. Surely she knows something about how her state came to be and why it came to be. Her kibbutz is right next to the Gaza Strip. Did she know nothing of Hamas and their genocidal intentions? They make plain their antisemitism and their anti-Zionism in their charter. Does she know nothing about Islam? (See this excellent article by Raymond Ibrahim.)
As I say elsewhere, homo homini lupus does not capture the depth of human depravity, and is an insult to the wolves to boot. Man is not a wolf to man; man is a demon to man.
I am touching upon one of the roots, perhaps the deepest, of the delusional Left, namely the insane notion that everyone, deep down inside, is basically good. Not only is this conceit a characteristically leftist bit of delusionality, it also serves to distinguish conservative from leftist. No conservative accepts that crazy conceit.
And let's not forget that those who accept the crazy conceit that people are basically good refute their own false theory by being the most murderous of all. In the 20th century alone communist governments have murdered some 85-100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism.
I consider the question in today's Substack entry.
Substack latest. Hold onto your wallets, muchachos!
The world is full of hustlers and charlatans who prey upon spiritual seekers. One ought to be suspicious of anyone who claims enlightenment or special powers. The acid test is whether they demand money or sex for their services. If they do, run away while holding onto your wallet. 'Bhagwan Shree' Rajneesh is a good example from the '80s.
Word came last night from Bill's wife Jennifer:
Sadly Bill passed away November 29th. His heart just finally wore out. He spoke of you often and considered you a valued friend.
Bill,
Just wanted to tell you that one of the more rewarding things I have done recently is sign up for your Substack. The articles are just about right for my level of understanding and reduced attention span. (My mind is slowing down)
Peace,
Bill
A third and much younger blogger buddy of both of us, Kevin Kim, said the following about Bill back in aught-nine in a piece entitled, The Wisdom of Bill Keezer:
I don't want to embarrass Bill Keezer by making a habit of slapping his emails up here on the blog, but I do want to hold up a recent email of his.
Bill has been sending emails regularly since this crisis began, and was already a correspondent even before that. He maintains an excellent blog called Bill's Comments (with lengthier thoughts posted at Bill's Big Stuff). He and I probably fall on different parts of the political spectrum (Bill leans more rightward while I'd call myself a centrist), but we share a non-traditional view of Christianity and a great love of scientific thought. The major difference here is that, while I'm a scientific skeptic by temperament, Bill is more: he's an actual scientist. Along with that, and despite (or because of?) his non-traditional stance toward Christianity, Bill is highly active in his own church. I don't want to reveal too much about his personal project, but he's putting together a book that I'm very eager to read.
I often feel I don't deserve the wisdom that Bill dispenses so freely. But he's an excellent, thoughtful writer, and he seems fine with directing so much of that excellence and thoughtfulness toward my family, despite the fact that we've never met face-to-face. Bill generally sends his emails to my address, but I often share them, when they arrive, with Dad. As I said earlier, I don't want to embarrass Bill by making a habit of slapping his emails up on this blog (would you write private emails to someone who consistently made them public?), but I thought you might appreciate his latest. [You can read the rest here.]
Another blogger friend of ours from the early days is Keith Burgess-Jackson who recently called a halt to a 20-year blogging run, in which he never missed a day. In his final post, dated 5 November 2023, exactly 20 years to the day from said blog's inception, he too has good things to say about Bill Keezer:
Fortunately, I've also met many good and decent people through this blog, from Peg Kaplan to Bill Vallicella to Bill Keezer to Steve Burri to Kevin Stroup to Reed Anderson. At least one of them (John Sullivan) is a friend to whom I speak (usually by texting) on a near-daily basis. Despite having to deal with creeps and crazies such as [Brian] Leiter, including, in 2017, a mob of malicious students who tried (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to get me "canceled" (for committing the unpardonable sin of being a conservative professor!), I have enjoyed every minute of my blogging experience.
All this is by way of saying that . . . I'm calling a permanent halt to posting. I haven't posted much in recent years anyway, but that will stop. I have other and better things to do in my retirement. Looking back, I'm honored to have been present in the heyday of blogging. Alas, in 2023, it is no longer (or not much of) a "thing." Other forms of social media have supplanted it. I can say, proudly, that I never missed a day of blogging. Counting leap years (in 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020), I posted at least one item for 7,306 consecutive days. On some days, I posted well over a dozen items, many of them philosophical (i.e., analytic) in nature. On other days, especially recently, I posted only one item, such as the daily feature "Ten Years Ago Today in This Blog." (Speaking of which, here is my post from 10 years ago today, about this blog.)
My blog was never about philosophy only. It was about whatever interested me at the time, and, frankly, almost everything interests me. I wrote about history, law, economics, politics, world affairs, baseball, cycling, running, technology, journalism, academia, language, religion, music, and many other topics.
For those of you who frequented this blog, thank you. I hope I entertained and edified. I'm 66 and a half years old now and in great health. (I ride my bike at least 20 miles per day. I rode 349 of 365 days in 2022, racking up 7,500 miles. I'm riding almost as much this year.) I have a Twitter (oops! X) presence and an account on Donald Trump's Truth Social, but I rarely post anything on those sites. I use them to see what others are saying. I also have a Substack account, but haven't posted anything there in several months. That may change.
Finally, let me express my gratitude to a benefactor (and friend). The person most responsible (and therefore most to blame) for getting me into blogging back in 2003 is John J. Ray of Brisbane, Australia, whose main blog is Dissecting Leftism. I learned much from John over the years, including, significantly, the importance of respecting religion and religious people even though one is not oneself religious. John was always ready and willing to help me with the technical aspects of my blog. Thank you, John. You are an inspiration. I wish you and yours the very best.
Onward!
Civil courage and prudence are competing virtues. At times competition become collision.
Top o' the Stack.
No morally sane and intelligent person could be for it.
A Substack entry from last year more relevant than ever in the wake of 'woke' toleration of incitements to violence against Jews at leftist seminaries and elsewhere.
phatic /făt′ĭk/adjective
- Of or relating to communication used to perform a social function rather than to convey information or ideas.
- Pertaining to words used to convey any kind of social relationship e.g polite mood, rather than meaning; for example, "How are you?" is often not a literal question but is said only as a greeting. (Similarly, a response such as "Fine" is often not an accurate answer, but merely an acknowledgement of the greeting.).
London Ed sends the following:
‘this mirror image of this face’
That’s a referring expression which refers to something. Does it refer to the same thing as ‘this face’ refers to? If so, it is problematic.
'This mirror image' does indeed refer to something. It refers to a mirror image. 'This face' also refers to something. It refers to the face of the man standing before the mirror and looking into it (not at it). Now no one's face is identical to a mirror image. (If there were no artificial or natural mirrors, there would be no mirror images, but there could still be faces of men and other animals.)
So I say that the two demonstrative uses of 'this' have numerically different referents. When I say 'this mirror image,' I point toward the mirror; when I say 'this face' I point toward my face. The two different directions of demonstration shows that the two occurrences of 'this' have numerically different referents.
But knowing Ed, he has something up his sleeve; there is some puzzle in the offing. He needs to remind me what it is.
Was she hired because of the 'intersectionality' of her race, sex, and surname? Story here.
Harvard University President Claudine Gay has apologized for her widely condemned Congressional testimony on campus antisemitism, which she said "failed to convey what is my truth."
Her truth? My ass! There is no such thing as her truth, my truth or yours or theirs, multiply your 'pronouns' beyond necessity and sanity as you will. But I have made this point before. Go to my truth category. True and True For is a representative post.
Vito sends the following tweet from that indefatigable quill-driver and purveyor of insights, Victor Davis Hanson. I have been following and promoting this guy for many years, and so it is with great pleasure that I see him at the top of his game, with the influence he deserves. Hanson's tweet below the fold.
Top o' the Stack.
Presentism questioned.
Hey Bill, Got it now, thanks for clarifying. I hope you have a nice Sunday. May God bless you!
Vini, Good comments. Your command of the English language is impressive. In my penultimate paragraph I wrote, “Hence their hatred…
Just a little correction, since I wrote somewhat hastily. I meant to say enemies of the truth (not from the…
You touched on very, very important points, Bill. First, I agree that people nowadays simply want to believe whatever the…
if you do nothing else in what remains of this year, read that essay. please.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/peace-has-been-murdered-and-dialogue?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=841240&post_id=173321322&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1dw7zg&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
From the Jacobin article: >>Kirk ran a well-funded political propaganda machine that promoted a simple message. “Liberals,” “radicals,” and “socialists”…
https://jacobin.com/2025/09/charlie-kirk-murder-political-violence >>Attempted and successful assassinations of political leaders are on the rise, as are politically motivated killings of less notable…
Hey again, Bill. Is it okay to ask another question? Why do you qualify “That may suffice to refute certain…
I didn’t mention Schmitt because I am not sure I want to go as far as he goes, or draw…
3 responses to “Political Parsimony”