On the political uses of evil
Elizabeth Bruenig

This doesn’t speak to me. It’s intention is good, but it contains a number of flawed assumptions. How we define words is unique to each one, to their particular path, so our understandings, of necessity, differ. That’s fine, yet not so fine when it’s neither acknowledge nor recognized — when it remains largely subconscious.

We tend to judge a tree by its fruits — yet how we judge those fruits also differs, within a certain range. For instance, if I find a fruit with evidence of worm or insect “damage,” that’s a plus — to me. It means Nature judged it to be “good,” i.e., attractive to bugs — more likely organic. Do you see? Our inner definitions & understandings are surprisingly varied.

This just makes sense, first because we’re not robots, but also because, were there but one definition for everything, what need or use would there be for the many — for their diversity? The world could be peopled by one or two & be seen as somehow complete.

Much of what you say has merit — I just don’t feel the room there for other perspectives, other ways of seeing. Thus, it feels a little boxed-in to me.

Thanks for sharing, though — gives us worthy food for pondering.


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.