When moderation is not a virtue
I am very pessimistic about present day moderates. Understand this, I have nothing against moderation. Most of the times, moderation is a virtue, intellectual discourse however, is not one of those cases.
The requirement for intellectual discourse is rigor, inquisitiveness, diligence, Honesty and courage. If these conditions are fulfilled then the debate and conclusion have credibility, even if I think that the conclusion is wrong I can appreciate the effort.
However, what I do not appreciate is the moderation because of inertia and indolence. If someone takes a moderate position, I expect him (her) to make a plausible argument; lasse fair, though alluring is not convincing enough for me.
And this is the problem with so called moderates, they are moderates not because they have given a thought about it, they are because it is a path of least resistance for them. In other words, it is just a euphemism for appeasement or pandering.
One can be reasonably sure that when someone says "but, why can't every get along", it is likely that (s)he is speaking not from any compassion for humanity, but just to avoid confrontation.
Avoiding confrontation is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps people get along in real life. But it is one thing to avoid arguments for sake of day to day business, quite another to make moderation as default intellectual position out of sheer sloth.
In normal times (whatever that may mean), this can be overlooked and shrugged away. But when there are challenges from fanaticism, this propensity to scurry for moderation is dangerous. The reason is such tendency doesn't address the problem. It is like ostrich burying head in sand. Inaction borne out of wish to avoid unpleasantness is nothing but capitulation in front of brutes and can only result in much more grief and tragedy at a later stage.
Going along with flow is not always a noble trait.
History is testimony to this. Hitler came to power because of indulgence from President Paul von Hindenburg .
He went to war because he was sure Chamberlain would not interfere.
Mahatma Gandhi and Congress underestimated Muslim League and sought to placate Jinnah by appeasing.
The requirement for intellectual discourse is rigor, inquisitiveness, diligence, Honesty and courage. If these conditions are fulfilled then the debate and conclusion have credibility, even if I think that the conclusion is wrong I can appreciate the effort.
However, what I do not appreciate is the moderation because of inertia and indolence. If someone takes a moderate position, I expect him (her) to make a plausible argument; lasse fair, though alluring is not convincing enough for me.
And this is the problem with so called moderates, they are moderates not because they have given a thought about it, they are because it is a path of least resistance for them. In other words, it is just a euphemism for appeasement or pandering.
One can be reasonably sure that when someone says "but, why can't every get along", it is likely that (s)he is speaking not from any compassion for humanity, but just to avoid confrontation.
Avoiding confrontation is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps people get along in real life. But it is one thing to avoid arguments for sake of day to day business, quite another to make moderation as default intellectual position out of sheer sloth.
In normal times (whatever that may mean), this can be overlooked and shrugged away. But when there are challenges from fanaticism, this propensity to scurry for moderation is dangerous. The reason is such tendency doesn't address the problem. It is like ostrich burying head in sand. Inaction borne out of wish to avoid unpleasantness is nothing but capitulation in front of brutes and can only result in much more grief and tragedy at a later stage.
Going along with flow is not always a noble trait.
History is testimony to this. Hitler came to power because of indulgence from President Paul von Hindenburg .
He went to war because he was sure Chamberlain would not interfere.
Mahatma Gandhi and Congress underestimated Muslim League and sought to placate Jinnah by appeasing.
Categories : Politics , Society , Culture , Civilization
0 comments:
Post a Comment