Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Stove on contemporary academic style

Some anonymous fellow in the combox to this post got awfully upset at the assertive tone I sometimes take in my writings. “Unbecoming of a professional philosopher,” and all that. It must kill the poor guy to see so many contemporary academic philosophers smugly assume, without argument, the truth of naturalism or liberalism (say) or casually dismiss religious belief without knowing what its most significant defenders have actually said. And it must be absolutely devastating for him to see all that horrible unprofessional, unphilosophical assertiveness in a Hume, a Nietzsche, or a Russell.

Anyway, his lament reminded me of this passage from David Stove’s The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies:

Much of what the ‘modern nervous’ reader finds abrasive, in nineteenth-century writers, is no more than a masculine and admirable directness. And, when you come right down to it, there simply is no non-Whiggish way of writing, about science or any subject. It is an entirely pointless for an author to indulge in general acknowledgments of his liability to error and ignorance; while he cannot, on obvious logical grounds, point out to us specifically where he errs or is ignorant. He could, of course, conciliate modern nervousness by putting ‘It seems to me that…’ in front of everything he wishes to say. But that is a proceeding equally pointless and vexatious, as well as generating a regress (‘It seems to me that it seems to me that…’) which will prevent him from ever saying anything at all. (pp. 23-4)

The “modern nervousness” of which Stove speaks is a purported reluctance of contemporary thinkers to be too confident in asserting the truth of their opinions, in light of the overthrow of scientific theories once thought to be unchallengeable. Hence the tentativeness and modesty that is – again, purportedly – the hallmark of contemporary academic writing, and which one generally does not find in philosophers of the past. An Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, or Kant just tells you straightforwardly what he thinks is true, and why he thinks it. So too did the lesser lights -- Stove's discussion concerns the matter-of-fact confidence of tone that was standard in the Victorian era. Contemporary philosophers like to pretend that no serious member of their guild would ever be so rash as that – that we must hedge every claim, that all we can ever say responsibly is that such-and-such appears very plausible and worthy of consideration and further investigation, that so-and-so seems at least defensible while the opposite view seems hard to defend but hey, who the hell knows for sure, etc. etc.

I say “purported” and “pretend” because this contemporary idealization of tentativeness and intellectual humility is to a large extent phony. Not always, of course, and not on relatively minor issues. But largely, and with respect to the biggest issues; and Stove thus gives the people he is criticizing too much credit (which is saying something, considering Stove’s usual approach). As I’ve already indicated, at least a very great many academics are not the least bit tentative vis-à-vis their commitment to naturalism or left-of-center politics. You will not hear many of them saying “Well, this ‘non-sexist’ ‘inclusive language’ stuff seems pretty sound to me, but of course, we shouldn’t arrogantly expect all students, submitters of journal articles, etc. to adopt that style themselves as if no one could reasonably disagree with it!” You will wait in vain in most faculty lounges to overhear anyone suggest “Gee, I guess it’s just possible that we fling around accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ a bit too freely. I mean, consider the Larry Summers case…” APA members do not generally keep themselves awake at night worrying whether the stigmatizing of universities with “homophobic” hiring policies might reflect a lack of intellectual humility and open-mindedness with respect to natural law arguments against homosexual acts. An alarming number of contemporary philosophers who know nothing about philosophy of religion – as is obvious to any expert in the subject who examines their amateurish forays into it – have no scruples whatsoever about pronouncing confidently that religious belief is intellectually disreputable. Etc. etc. etc.

It’s the old story: As good academics, we should be open-minded, respectful of dissenting views, treating every conclusion as provisional. Except, you know, regarding what “everyone knows” is “just so obvious.” In short, “tentativeness and humility for thee, but not for me.”

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

“tentativeness and humility for thee, but not for me.”

This certainly is not the way of a good scientist.

As for applying this attitude to your philosophy, particularly A-T, if you grant near infallibility to these two figures (Aristotle and Aquinas), then you must explain away crimes due to their ideas, such as non-human animal cruelty resulting from holding that animals do not have souls like us, and perhaps worse, that slaves have souls even less sophisticated than the non-human animals.

I would rethink tentativity and humility if I were you.

Maolsheachlann said...

Funny that I just came across this quotation while reading an essay by Fr. Stanley Jaki:

"And what about Newman? He is all too often played up nowadays as the theologian of Vatican II. This is a strange label indeed, for at least one reason: Newman time and again emphasized that he was not a theologian, but, horribile dictu, a controversialist! He indeed also said that he would never miss the chance to join a good battle! Always kind to persons, he could be cruelly cutting when it came to stating principles. He was no champion of an “ecumenical” smoothness, the recently standardized means of preventing that anyone should appear a plain fool if not a plain intellectual villain."

Anonymous said...

The inevitable counterpart to this fake epistemic humility is the fake political pluralism that it is taken to underwrite. Most contemporary academics love the idea of pluralism and intellectual diversity. So long, of course, as we open the space of reasons to underrepresented views on the left. As soon as we suggest that traditional sexual morality, or traditional views of gender roles be tolerated or permitted to flourish, pluralism ceases to be such a big priority. This is exactly what the recent APA resolution highlighted for us all- the "pretend" pluralists on the left have no qualms about marginalizing or disenfranchising entire conceptions of the good. Pluralism in academe: everything from A to B!

Anonymous said...

anon 5:36,

Get a life, please. Can you provide a single shred of evidence that Aristotle and Aquinas are being held up as "near infallible?" Of course you can't. Look, friend, I know you have a huge animal rights axe to grind, and I know that this "Aquinas doesn't think animals have human souls therefore he is partly responsible for the worst excesses of animal mistreatment" tune is, apparently, the only note to the only song you know, but please: either provide some serious arguments, or go rant at the PETA website.

Anonymous said...

"please: either provide some serious arguments, or go rant at the PETA website."

Ed,

What evidence would you want, here?

TheOFloinn said...

such as non-human animal cruelty resulting from holding that animals do not have souls like us

Mary Midgley traces that securely to Enlightenment ideas of animals as being unable to enter the social contract. This in turn, due to the Cartesian notion that animals are simply machines. (This is why moderns are often astonished to discover "human traits" like too-use among mere animals.) No Aristo-Thomist would make such an error. Stimulus-response is not a mechanistic process.

That animals do not have souls like us is fairly obvious; but that they have souls is equally obvious. The Latin word for "soul" is anima, which means "life."

Aristotle held slavery to be natural; but he was a pagan. Aquinas did not so hold. Also, I don't recall where Aristotle claimed that "slaves have souls even less sophisticated than the non-human animals" or even what "sophisticated" means in this context. Indeed, the confusion of "quality of life" with one's current cognitive powers is again a spin-off of the Enlightenment.

The Deuce said...

As for applying this attitude to your philosophy, particularly A-T, if you grant near infallibility to these two figures (Aristotle and Aquinas), then you must explain away crimes due to their ideas, such as non-human animal cruelty resulting from holding that animals do not have souls like us, and perhaps worse, that slaves have souls even less sophisticated than the non-human animals.

Goodness, you sound awfully non-tentative about the claims you're making here. Care to provide some actual evidence that A&A thought that slaves were less human than animals, or that their views have served as a substantial cause of animal cruelty? Or how any of this slander has anything to do with the truth of Ed's claims, for that matter?

Or is this something you don't have to be tentative about, because it's just something "everybody knows" ("everybody" meaning you and your enlightened friends). Or in other words, "tentativeness for thee, but not for me".

Anonymous said...

A recent source of info that describes Aristotle's view on slave souls and animal souls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQkbC2JnRFI&feature=channel

Someone here blamed DesCartes, as though all was well for the creatures in Christendom before...Look into how Augustine said we should treat the 'brutes'

Read some theologians Regan, Lindsay, or Webb.

Aquinas only cared for animals in that how we treat them might affect US spiritually.

Forgive me if I stop short.

Whenever the animal-cruelty charge is made against western culture is denied with feigned incredulity and demands for proof that animals have been and still are horribly suffering by the Church doctrines (almost = A-T), I know the ones making the demands are seeking red herrings.

It seems the devoted Catholics here choose to ignore JP II's clear pronouncements on the sameness of animal and creature souls - why?

Anonymous said...

Correction in last line

human and non-human soul

TheOFloinn said...

Someone here blamed DesCartes, as though all was well for the creatures in Christendom before.

The critique of the Enlightenment project and its contribution to the treatment and debasement of animals was set forth by Mary Midgley, a well-known atheist and animal rights philosopher.

Aquinas only cared for animals in that how we treat them might affect US spiritually.

I await any presentation of the thoughts of rabbits or wolves on how their treatment of us [or each other] affects them spiritually.

Aesop and Disney have a lot to answer for here.
+ + +
Human and animal souls are not the same, or else humans would be no different from other animals, which we clearly are by dint that we are having this debate and not the squirrels in my yard. Do we really need to ask if horses have speculative philosophy? Or if rabbits produce mathematics? Or snakes have sciences? Where is the art of the kangaroo? However, because humans are a kind of animal, the human soul includes a sensitive soul, not as a separate "part" but integrated into the whole. (And the animal soul incorporates [pardon the pun] a vegetative soul, and the vegetative soul incorporates an inanimate form.)

Crude said...

A question for the vegan.

Do you believe that humans and animals have souls? Are you yourself a christian, or even a theist? I seem to recall that the PETA has an atheist at the helm, and count materialists among their number.

I'd love - absolutely love - to compare and contrast the sort of cruelties that are implicitly or explicitly justified (or at least, shown not to violate any objective moral law) by the assumption of atheism and/or materialism, versus by Catholicism.

Interstellar Bill said...

Those same academicians preaching metaphysical incertitude would sing differently if the philosophical spotlight turned to their chief religious crusade, global warming. There we find dogmatic certitude exceeding the Inquisition's, all for what is nothing more than a quaint scientific hypothesis jerry-built from a chain of unlikely climate-research sub-hypotheses, all quite unproven by a field far too immature even to be attempting such forecasting. The Holy Dogma of the Self-Annointed, the AGW Tipping Point of Woe, is said to absolutely mandate energy statism and the equitable distribution of poverty. When will those Marxists apply their cynical class-interest reductionism to themselves?

Edward Feser said...

Ed,

What evidence would you want, here?


"Ed"? I wasn't the one who made the statement you are replying to. It's been a long day, and a bad one, and family obligations prevent me from taking time to do more right now than to note this: If I had been the one replying to you, I would have done so under my own name, as I always do. (Funny to see an implied accusation to the contrary coming from an anonymous commenter, of all people!)

bgc said...

I'd prefer to see anonymous comments deleted from all blogs - certainly, I never read them.

If a commenter cannot even be bothered to think up a pseudonym, then he is self-refuting.

But anyway, I deplore a focus upon rhetorical style over substance. It is a major focus of the mass media - criticism of the manner by which opponents conduct themselves, and ad hominem statements and speculations.

These discussions cannot be resolved and can go on forever - and everybody has an opinion. Of course this is worst with religion; but until you have experienced it yourself, as I have, you would not believe how a widespread media discussion of even scientific facts can _completely_ avoid facts.

The modern mass media can take a clear statement of a single fact; and instead of asking whether that fact is true, they bury the fact under a vast and elaborate edifice of speculation about why the person uttered that particular fact, what this tells us about that person, whether their manner of uttering it was optimal or maybe clumsy, what might be the effects of uttering the fact, and so on and on.

But discussions of style, personality and motivation are used to distract attention from engaging with substantive arguments.

I happen to like Ed's style very much - it has the virtues of clarity and forcefulness, and he was the first person in decades to successfully get Thomism through my thick skull. That took force.

In other words he managed to get me to recognize the truth. And that is precisely what rhetoric is for.

Anonymous said...

Crude asks, “A question for the vegan.

Do you believe that humans and animals have souls? Are you yourself a christian, or even a theist? I seem to recall that the PETA has an atheist at the helm, and count materialists among their number.”

I think you mean me. I am not vegan (I want to be). I am the anonymous who made the 1st comment and also “It seems the devoted Catholics here choose to ignore JP II's clear pronouncements on the sameness of human and non-human (animal or creature) souls - why?”

I am a tentative Catholic – definitely not dogmatic. I view Francis of Assisi with infinitely more esteem than Aquinas, I feel a kindred spirit between JP II and Francis.

PETA has a Christian coalition that acts with the humility I feel appropriate to the problem of animal cruelty.

Stephen H Webb is active with this PETA movement. He is a conservative Catholic theologian who wrote _ On God and Dogs _ where he argues for Christians to work with fellow creatures in bring forth the eschaton of the peaceable kingdom – I highly recommend it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

theofloinn

" I await any presentation of the thoughts of rabbits or wolves on how their treatment of us [or each other] affects them spiritually. "

In Genesis, God gave us fellow animal creatures as companions.

As for the history of Church policies affecting animals, start with the Stoics and their influence on Augustine.

I've heard you quote Midgley in the past - you might expand your info sources a bit and perhaps your prejudices will be challenged.

Lorenzo said...

It is always good to see my teacher being appreciated. He was the only one of the academics who taught me at Sydney University I kept in touch with after I left.

Crude said...

Anonymous,

Thank you, but you responded to none of my questions, and sidestepped the points I made. If the charge is going to be made against the Catholic Church, and A-T philosophy in particular, that said metaphysics are responsible for the mistreatment of animals - then what about atheism, and materialism? I say there will be no contest, and atheism/materialism will be the more disastrous worldview where animal welfare is concerned. And I further say, insofar as the PETA is either silent on these issues or implicitly endorses atheism and/or materialism, they are responsible for harm that comes to animals.

What's more, you say JPII made a "clear pronouncement" on the "sameness" of animal and human souls. Putting aside whether he meant that, and what authority it carried, I'll simply ask: Was the Pope a vegan? Did he consider eating meat or animal products a sin? If not, that's all the perspective needed to make it clear of the vast, vast gulf between JPII and PETA. No one is ignoring the pronouncement - what's being ignored is a nutty rendition of what it means.

You talk about prejudices being challenged. Here's my challenge to you: Maybe human eating meat and using animal products is not evil. It may, in fact, be a good - not even a necessary evil, but a good itself. Maybe PETA is actually supporting worldviews and movements that are or lead to great moral harm, harm to animals, and harm to humans. And maybe there is a difference between humans and animals, while at the same time humanity still has certain duties to animals.

I'm against factory farming and PETA both, for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

Crude said...
Anonymous,

Thank you, but you responded to none of my questions, and sidestepped the points I made. If the charge is going to be made against the Catholic Church, and A-T philosophy in particular, that said metaphysics are responsible for the mistreatment of animals

*It is not theologically or philosophically necessary or defensible to allow animal suffering. Look at how Jesus spoke of God’s love and care for them. I wish to see the Church examine its conscience, (Pope Benedict so advocates w/r animal farms). The suffering of animals could easily have been avoided during the past reign of Christendom and with its present influence, still could do so.

- then what about atheism, and materialism? I say there will be no contest, and atheism/materialism will be the more disastrous worldview where animal welfare is concerned. And I further say, insofar as the PETA is either silent on these issues or implicitly endorses atheism and/or materialism, they are responsible for harm that comes to animals.

*If the majority of PETA members are secularists, it would not surprise me, since they justifiably see religion as part of the problem of animal suffering.

What's more, you say JPII made a "clear pronouncement" on the "sameness" of animal and human souls. Putting aside whether he meant that, and what authority it carried, I'll simply ask: Was the Pope a vegan? Did he consider eating meat or animal products a sin? If not, that's all the perspective needed to make it clear of the vast, vast gulf between JPII and PETA. No one is ignoring the pronouncement - what's being ignored is a nutty rendition of what it means.

*His words of ‘we both have the same breath of God’ and ‘are both brothers’ are SO adamant that, if JP II did not mean what he clearly stated at the gathering, he was either lying or being intentionally duplicitous. As for falling short and sinning – we ALL do.

You talk about prejudices being challenged. Here's my challenge to you: Maybe human eating meat and using animal products is not evil. It may, in fact, be a good - not even a necessary evil, but a good itself.

*Watch some animal slaughter vids.

Maybe PETA is actually supporting worldviews and movements that are or lead to great moral harm, harm to animals, and harm to humans. And maybe there is a difference between humans and animals, while at the same time humanity still has certain duties to animals.

I'm against factory farming and PETA both, for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.

Abe Lincoln

Crude said...

Anon,

"*It is not theologically or philosophically necessary or defensible to allow animal suffering. Look at how Jesus spoke of God’s love and care for them."

No commands of veganism, or even vegetarianism. Despite dietary laws. While providing fishes to a crowd to eat. While driving spirits into pigs to drown.

"I wish to see the Church examine its conscience, (Pope Benedict so advocates w/r animal farms). The suffering of animals could easily have been avoided during the past reign of Christendom and with its present influence, still could do so.""

What makes you think the conscience has not been examined, and nothing has been found wrong with eating meat? Maybe your conscience is the one that needs to be examined - you're the one in the wrong here, my conscience says.

"*If the majority of PETA members are secularists, it would not surprise me, since they justifiably see religion as part of the problem of animal suffering."

You keep on avoiding my question: If we are going to talk about the impact of Catholicism or even A-T philosophy on the treatment of animals, then what of atheism and materialism? So now you justify "secularism" - I assume, atheism and materialism - despite the fact that these views eschew the very idea of there being any objective moral laws, period, to say nothing of towards animals?

Your entire front of criticism just fell apart here. You rail against one philosophical tradition because of what you think it permits and leads to, but you turn a blind eye towards one vastly more harmful to animals and humans alike - with the track record to show it. Why?

"*His words of ‘we both have the same breath of God’ and ‘are both brothers’ are SO adamant that, if JP II did not mean what he clearly stated at the gathering, he was either lying or being intentionally duplicitous. As for falling short and sinning – we ALL do."

He was not a vegan. He did not advocate veganism. He did not "fall short" - his words did not have the meaning you want them to have, nor did he intend them to. There's a third option you don't want to consider: That you're manipulating the Pope's words to mean what you want them to mean, intentionally or not. The fact that your interpretation of those words is in such a minority should tell you something.

"*Watch some animal slaughter vids."

Watch some? Not only have I watched some, my family raised pigs and chickens in our backyard as a hobby, not to mention goats (for milking). And yes, these were killed and eaten by us as well.

You do your cause a disservice. The PETA's harmful philosophy and lunatic mission is harmful to animals (not just due to the executions they perform on them) as well as humans. I suggest you try challenging your own prejudices and examining your own conscience.

Anonymous said...

Crude

I am speaking from 'within the fold', not as an outsider attacking. Think :repent and reform"

I can easily see you attacking my (and JPII's) comments about loving fellow animals if I were instead to say "love thy neighbor". No need for bringing in atheism.

Whatever happened to your fellow beef-eaters form earlier comments?

The Codgitator said...

I'm curious.

We see animals hunting, killing, and devouring each other all the time and yet I don't think anyone would say, for example, that the lion is pernicious or cruel for eating the gazelle, and certainly not guilty of "animal cruelty". Yet if humans and all other animals ['souled agents'] have the same formal nature (soul), then surely no one should call humans' manipulation and consumption of animals unethical. If there really is no qualitative difference between me and a lion, why not convince me *and* the lion to spare other creatures "unnecessary suffering"?

Presumably the rejoinder is that 'natural' predators, unlike humans, only inflict pain on their prey to eat them, not to domesticate, train, experiment on, etc. them. Yet, again, surely this is just a matter of squeamishness differing taste among species. I may not like the idea of killer whales playing with their prey before eating it, but I don't think I can call it immoral. Ergo, etc.

Best,

Crude said...

Anon,

"I am speaking from 'within the fold', not as an outsider attacking. Think :repent and reform"

Wonderful - then the two of us can agree that materialism and atheism (particularly together) are vastly more harmful to animals, given what they deny and implicitly justify as far morality (towards both animals and humans) goes.

Correct?

And we can, within the same fold, agree to the major shortfalls, hypocrisy, and intellectual corruption present in groups that purport to look out for animal welfare - when in fact their worldviews intellectually wreak havoc on their very cause.

Correct?

"I can easily see you attacking my (and JPII's) comments about loving fellow animals if I were instead to say "love thy neighbor". No need for bringing in atheism."

You've condemned Catholicism and A-T in particular (not to mention 'religion' broadly) for giving intellectual support to what you see as abuse. I think the comparison and contrast is important to establish right out of the gates. Given that, there's plenty of warrant to discuss atheism and materialism. Is that so hard?

What's more, I'm not disagreeing with JPII. I think humans have a duty to animals. But your inane interpretation of JPII's words is just that, as much as you wish it weren't so. And despite your clear intention to continue acting as if he meant whatever you wish him to have meant.

"Whatever happened to your fellow beef-eaters form earlier comments?"

Whatever happened to you actually replying to the points I and others have made in this discussion, rather than ignoring them?

Anonymous said...

Cog

Why animals are also fallen into cruelty is a mystery to me; going back to the Genesis account where they were peaceable and vegetarian like us (God gave nuts and such for his creatures to eat).

Dr. Webb and others believe that just as we look to God for our proper flourishing, so too the creatures look to one another and up to us (like children coming to Jesus). And with evolution towards the return of the peaceable kingdom, perhaps we will develop cruelty-free food for all.

But I cannot claim to have an answer for your good question. It is a mystery.

Crude

I am keeping my focus here on animals and theists. Questions of atheism are another thing, and I am sure appeals to Genesis or JPII would not be in order there.

I am trying to address all commenters issues and offer some info to consider. Christians for PETA, for one, is a great source of lit. I was asked about Aristotle’s belief on slaves being sub-animal, provided a source, and poof – no more commenter. I mention vegetarian theologians and both recent popes, and nobody responds. (You did, but I am not sure you googled JPII’s words)

I think I have addressed all commenters’ points.

This is a serious matter. Most of Jesus’ images of a loving God include vivid animal references, analogies, and images.

Crude said...

Anon,

"I am keeping my focus here on animals and theists. Questions of atheism are another thing, and I am sure appeals to Genesis or JPII would not be in order there."

Sorry, pal, but you're dishonest. You've gleefully smacked religion as a whole, you've defended secularism (and with it, atheism and materialism) because of the crimes of religion - forgetting that "crimes" are emptied of all moral weight under atheism and materialism. You say you come from "within the fold", but when I make just and reasonable criticisms of the organizations you praise, you buckle and quiver.

"I was asked about Aristotle’s belief on slaves being sub-animal, provided a source, and poof – no more commenter. I mention vegetarian theologians and both recent popes, and nobody responds. (You did, but I am not sure you googled JPII’s words)"

Nobody responds? Except for the people who have responded to you, of course. And yes, I've read JPII's words. I asked you some straightforward questions about him - you've danced around the implications. Because they make your already strained narrative all the harder to justify.

No, you haven't addressed all commenter's points - "I don't want to talk about that" and silence are not addressing. But, I'm done here. You're dishonest, you have a severe problem with using reason on this subject, and your response to people not bothering to discuss things further with you as victory. So I'll simply point out that you've lost on all points and been exposed as lacking good faith in discussion, and move on to better topics with more reliable, even if opposing, commenters.

Crude said...

As a final aside, your "source" for your claim about Aristotle was an hour long youtube video discussing Aristotle far less than other topics. I had to dig through it to find anything approaching the topic, incidentally finding the speaker saying he was not competent to adequately discuss Aristotle on the topic of mind and soul.

Even then, I found no claims by Aristotle that slaves had souls less sophisticated than non-human animals. Maybe I missed it. What I did hear of Aristotle making comparisons of slaves to animals (lower and domesticated) - but comparisons and analogies are not equations.

But there's a greater problem with this: Aristotle is not infallible, nor is Aquinas. Indeed, it would be hard for the latter to be, since he explicitly made arguments that amounted to correcting or disagreeing with the former. Just as Aquinas could be wrong about ensoulment but right about more, Aristotle could have made wrong turns on slaves but been right about intellect and more. Again, I suggest you check your own prejudices here.

But then, I'm done with this. Your style and substance leave me wanting.

01010101 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"“tentativeness and humility for thee, but not for me.”

This certainly is not the way of a good scientist.

As for applying this attitude to your philosophy, particularly A-T, if you grant near infallibility to these two figures (Aristotle and Aquinas), then you must explain away crimes due to their ideas..."

'Crimes' is not the term in most cases of orthodoxy run amok. It is the case, however, that serious harm and burdening of prople can result from dogged refusal to change. Neo-cons are often correct that liberal progressives often screw up while following a pet ideology, say anti-technology anti-nukes back in the day.

But the knife cuts both ways, and tentativeness and humility deserve GREAT respect from all parties.

Anonymous said...

An excellent short blog post giving an overview of the responsibility of religious to give compassion to all creatures..http://namahatta.org/blogs/index.php/vasu/2008/09/26/abolitionist_online_interview