Posts from — September 2009

The monks in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose frequently debate one another on the finer points of scripture. Comically, these debates turn on such minutely fine points that the monks are in danger of entirely shaking off any proper perspective on Christ’s teachings. Whenever a monk is murdered, the blind monk Jorge takes it upon himself to interpret in these unnatural deaths signs of the forthcoming apocalypse, and is certain that they loudly echo warnings given in Revelations. In the novel, Jorge represents the over-literalist approach to interpretation, whereas the friar William of Baskerville represents the more liberal, and by implication more modern, approach. [Read more →]

Following the BBC’s revelation that it is considering inviting Nick Griffin of the British National Party onto Question Time, there has been much angry debate. Sunny Hundal is firmly against it, and in the Guardian summarises the liberal “myths” that are posed as good reasons to have him on the show. The first and perhaps most obvious of these is: “the BNP’s arguments can be defeated through rational argument.” That in itself is not a myth: their arguments can be defeated through rational argument. After all, most reasonable people rightly think that the BNP’s views and policies are unjustified and evil. What Hundal means to say is “the BNP’s supporters can be converted through rational argument.” I have very little doubt that Sunny Hundal’s view on the matter is correct: there is no possible use of logic that can convert someone committed to such illogic. The BNP’s supporters, as he rightly says, are driven to their position by emotion, not reason—but they were driven to their position in the first place. Hardly any politician convinces by logical reasoning: why not apply their rhetorical and political skill in this case? [Read more →]