Ad Hominems and the Duty of Thinkers - Jersey Flight

Ad Hominem: what does it mean?

In some cases it means we feel threatened by the force and power of a person's ideas, while in other cases it means we have penetrate to the very core of a person's philosophy. Attaching a negative conclusion to the man is the most devastating critique we can ever make against another human being. But this action must not be premature: first we refute the ideas, and then we have the right to scour the man! All philosophy comes back to the vital premise of character. I contend that Ad Hominem proclamations must be true in order to be valid.

People have often called me an extremist or fanatic, but these labels carry little weight if they do not represent legitimate, negative attributes. I am against violence! I am against the exploitation of my fellow human beings! To this end does all my thinking flow. I am an easy thinker to understand: I care about the well-being of my fellow man: woe to those who seek to oppress and exploit the children of the earth! I take issue with all lines of thought which kick against freedom and peace, all subtle philosophies which seek to control man as a kind of commodity, all ideologies which impede the stability of the good society. The time has come to stop playing games (as almost all philosophy has hitherto been a game). The time has come to realize the desperate nature of our circumstances on the earth. We have to do better; we have to rise above our pettiness and arrogance. 

The issue of violence trumps all other issues; it is the supreme topic of interest for any truly conscious human being. And sadly, and in great terror, the world is FULL of ideologies of violence; it is FULL of men who advocate and perform violence. Violence poisons life. How can life, which is aware of itself, not seek the absolute eradication of violence? For by doing thus it adheres to the cultivation of its own well-being!

I know what the clever philosopher wants to say to me, he wants to contest that violence is necessary to rid the world of violence. Though he is correct, he is not correct as he thinks. The only proper use of violence can be that which is necessary to minimize the existence of violence. The dunce philosopher is playing a game when he raises this question; he is not thinking seriously about the danger of violence. Instead, he will take his logical objection and proceed hastily and recklessly toward the justification of violence. This is backwards (but backwardness is what one should expect from those who are not serious); just because the world is so decrepit that we must use violence to minimize the existence of violence, does not mean that violence is the way of peace. Instead, one must come to see a way that soars above; repaying violence with violence only begets more violence (this is the metaphysical rule). If we must eradicate the world of violent men then we must do so humanely! I contest that the philosopher who would raise the objection, of the paradox of violence, does not understand the delicate wisdom of violence. We only use violence if we must; violence should always be a kind of last resort, and it should only be used in order to bring about the maximization of peace. If violence does not do this then it cannot be legitimate. 

If you are a serious, concerned thinker, then there can be no choice: you have to take heed to the existence of violence! What then do philosophers tell us about themselves when they shun their responsibility toward violence? If you have a powerful mind then you are obligated (by a multitude of existential precepts) to fight for the eradication of violence. To do anything less is merely to manifest that one is severely impaired in their ontological understanding of reality.

THE VIOLENCE OF THE WORLD WILL EVENTUALLY INVADE OUR SPHERE OF APATHY!

-
-