So, this was a bit of a mistaken piece of discourse -- philosophically speaking -- from the cultural theorist of a guest as well as from Glenn. One can dress things up in contemporary particularism but keep committing deep if simple general fallacies. The metaphysics of 'thesis-antithesis' arose by denying moral absolutism as possible knowledge (I believe it was Hegel's Philosophy of the Right, which is not exactly a defense of 'rights'). By doing so, the idea of fighting anything becomes moot upon analysis: if one fights something that is not wholly false, one risks denying any lessons from the intellectual movement. Now, one could rationally believe that things are not wholly knowable but can be wholly true or false. But it would not be rational to believe that one ought to hedge one's bets in intellectual combat on the possibilities of good and evil without having tried a cooperative approach to begin with. If efforts at cooperation are fully satisfied and fail, then go ahead and try fighting. But I don't rationally believe we're even close to forging a cooperative relationship with a supposed evil (as no definition of cooperative terms has been devised and presented), launching rather into a desire for military confidence, the likes of which seek non-uniquely moral-legal aesthetics behind which to hide.
So, this was a bit of a mistaken piece of discourse -- philosophically speaking -- from the cultural theorist of a guest as well as from Glenn. One can dress things up in contemporary particularism but keep committing deep if simple general fallacies. The metaphysics of 'thesis-antithesis' arose by denying moral absolutism as possible knowledge (I believe it was Hegel's Philosophy of the Right, which is not exactly a defense of 'rights'). By doing so, the idea of fighting anything becomes moot upon analysis: if one fights something that is not wholly false, one risks denying any lessons from the intellectual movement. Now, one could rationally believe that things are not wholly knowable but can be wholly true or false. But it would not be rational to believe that one ought to hedge one's bets in intellectual combat on the possibilities of good and evil without having tried a cooperative approach to begin with. If efforts at cooperation are fully satisfied and fail, then go ahead and try fighting. But I don't rationally believe we're even close to forging a cooperative relationship with a supposed evil (as no definition of cooperative terms has been devised and presented), launching rather into a desire for military confidence, the likes of which seek non-uniquely moral-legal aesthetics behind which to hide.