“By the law of excluded middle, either “A is B” or “A is not B ” must be true. Hence either “the present King of France is bald” or “the present King of France is not bald” must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald, and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of France in either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.” (On Denoting)
This year I saw Christmas decorations before even Halloween and Black Friday setup at Walmart early Thanksgiving with signs saying not to touch until 6 pm. A few friends went out to shop at midnight and found out most places were closed, the whole thing happened on Thanksgiving evening without much notice. We’re already two months into the Christmas selling season and there’s not much of the usual excitement in the air.
This might just be 2016. It’s been widely acknowledged that this year has been sub-par. The length probably also plays a factor. Being excited about the Christmas season is harder when it’s three or four months long. Being excited about Black Friday is harder when it’s over a week long. I make the point now and then that scarcity increases our feeling of value in other domains, but it comes into play here, too.
I think in addition, though, there’s a dying excitement in consumerism. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not a big fan of consumerism. But I do appreciate nice things like excitement, even if they emerge from something less nice. Should buying unnecessary things be the focus of our celebration? No. The excitement is still nice. Hearing about the door-buster mega-blowout super-sale and seeing people excited about a cool new thing is nice. And I do still see it in some domains. Long-awaited movies and games that come out can get people excited. (In fact, pretty much all of my examples are cultural things. Books, TV shows, etc. also come to mind.) 4K TVs are making less of a splash than 3D which made less of a splash than HD. I don’t think they’re less cool, either. (I can’t see 3D, so maybe I’m wrong, but that sounds like a huge thing. If I had to choose between seeing more clearly and seeing in 3D, I’d pick 3D.) But the attitude has shifted from “Hey, come check out our awesome stuff!!” to “Buy our crap and get out.”
“we have all believed that the spidery mind trapped things in its web, covered them with a white spit and slowly swallowed them, reducing them to its own substance. What is a table, a rock, a house? A certain assemblage of “contents of consciousness,” a class of such contents. O digestive philosophy!”
I see this argument far too often, usually in a limited quantity of forms, but across a wide variety of topics. The argument goes:
- S entails x.
- x is good/bad.
- Therefore S is good/bad.
- S entails y.
- Therefore y is good/bad.
The word “entails” might be better swapped out for “includes” or some other verb depending on what S is. Usually the work is done with a sneaky shift in what’s meant by S. A lot of bad arguments on the web about feminism are subject to this.
- Feminism entails equality across gender.
- Equality across gender is good.
- Therefore feminism is good. (Or, “If you think men and women are equal, you’re a feminist.”)
- Feminism entails #KillAllMen.
- Therefore #KillAllMen is good.
Often this is played out contrapositively: If you think #KillAllMen isn’t good, you must be anti-feminist, which means you must be anti-gender-equality. This is, of course, silly. We can fight over what precisely the word “feminism” means, or just agree that there are multiple senses of it or homonyms in play (i.e. either the equality feminism and killing feminism are two kinds of feminism or there’s actually two words, pronounced and spelled the same, but with different meanings.) We can also just give the term to the other party and pick a new word to conveniently label a bundle of beliefs. (Or just state the whole bundle. This has issues for brevity, which in too many media is required to a stupid degree.)
This same basic line of thought is used to put words into others’ mouths or try to force them to make the contrapositive argument. For example, a communist may support public ownership of the means of production. Someone arguing against them may claim communism clearly involves killing millions of people, so it must be bad. That means communism must also be bad and thus public ownership of the means of production must be bad. Again, either we can play some games with the word “communism” or move over. (Other factors will come into play here as well. For this example in particular, “socialism” has had its meaning for many Americans shifted far to the right, leaving only “communism” which still leaves a bad taste for many.)
Ideally people would stop making this argument. In the absence of this ideal, I’m partial to acknowledging the usage disparities up front and defining words explicitly, easily hedging to use a different label for a set of beliefs. Granted, there is still the possibility of insisting on making this argument. Someone who is hostile to Christianity and also likes this argument may say Christians did the Crusades which were bad. Therefore Christianity is bad. Christianity includes believing Christ is the Son of God. Therefore believing Christ is the Son of God is bad. Ignoring the jump from Christians doing something to Christianity including something, someone not super attached to words may just make a new word. If I were a Christian who believed in Christ being the Son of God but thought the Crusades were bad, I might decide to tie all that up in, say, “Orichalchist”. So in this case I can say, sure, Christianity (i.e. Christ is Son + Crusades) is bad and Orichalcism (i.e. Christ is Son + anti-Crusades) is good. At this point the hostile may claim the Christ is Son thesis is sufficient to be a Christian, and being a Christian necessarily entails endorsing the Crusades. (I.e. there’s a non-necessary condition that’s necessary.) The argument is even more clearly absurd.
“He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior.”-Confucius
“There’s an old saying about the definition of a liberal, as opposed to a radical: a liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.”-Kevin Carson
“I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” -Albert Camus, The Stranger