tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7308765120853322519.post3927836767565190032..comments2011-04-05T14:16:21.719-07:00Comments on The Journal of Important Studies: Conrad Black and the visceral trump cardRobert Brinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13195694311108959223noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7308765120853322519.post-89444679142654805682011-03-11T11:27:01.048-08:002011-03-11T11:27:01.048-08:00And then there's the problem of when a viscera...And then there's the problem of when a visceral reaction might be called for, but is not present. Witness, as a case in point, the fact that the Tories keep increasing in the polls despite repeated instances of disrespect for Parliament (or outright contempt, if the Speaker's "prima facie" judgment is reliable). But this doesn't upset Canadians, allowing the Tories to suggest that this is nothing but obscure and tedious administrative nonsense that is beneath their contempt (no pun intended) and Canadian's real concerns. And they're right, at least in the latter case.<br /><br />I don't intend this as a partisan or even "political" rant. I want it to raise the question that is, in some ways, the mirror image of yours. The Black case, on your analysis, shows where visceral reaction confounds clear political judgment; is the current case of the Tories and parliament a case where anything other than a visceral reaction suggests a want of clear political judgment. Perhaps that visceral reaction just is good political judgment in a case like this?<br /><br />Aristotle saw passions as implicitly rational judgments in favoured cases; no Platonist he; do we need more Aristotelianism in our citizens?Michael Dnoreply@blogger.com