Piety is humility directed towards one's past. Hope is humility directed towards one's future.

It has always been a part of traditionalism to be forward thinking, yet it seems seldom a part of the so-called progressive mindset to well-regard the past. Yet without a good sense of the past, how is one to know which direction is "forward"?

There is no reason to be diffuse, opaque, dull, repetative, contradictory, abrasive, instrumentalist, or ironic in one's thinking.

...Unless it is useful to some end.

The distinction between a maxim and a slogan could be the faith confessed by the user. The latter has not shriven itself of its role in propaganda.

What we cannot remember as a slogan, we make every effort to forget.

...

In the end, there is only one truly brilliant thing. Chesterton taught us this. Ideas can be said to be brilliant only through analogy.

Even so, I wonder how many brilliant ideas there have actually been -- such ideas as open a tiny aperture in the heavens, through which the True Light shines -- stellar ideas...

Remember that even such illumination is still but a reflection through the darkened glass. Human genius remains enigmatic​. 

Swift has taught us the meaning of wit. Because it is concerned with truth, clarity will not diminish the luster of wit as it does with mere cleverness. 

It is not decoration, but a tool -- it can be sharpened and used incisively.

Like Augustine's coruscating steel, it reflects the light of the sun, though it does not emit its own.

(with J. Daniel) A clever idea is one which sounds interesting before it is explained. Like a joke, it's charm is lost.

I want cleverness to return to its pejorative sense among the philosophically inclined -- lest we lose a way of referring to spurious ideas which impress rather than instruct us.

Wit is cleverness rendered honorable -- if not by serving wisdom, at least by battling foolishness.

Many languages have multiple words for knowledge. German distinguishes between wissen and kennen, Spanish between saber and conocer, French connaître and savoir. In English, one can be canny. Something can be beyond our ken. But only in the court is one able to wit as an activity. 

We should restore honor to wit -- if not as much as to wisdom, then at least more than to mere cleverness. 

I've always been suspicious of typologies -- and of definitions doing argumentative work. When engaged in cleverness, one can define away objections, or else proliferate exceptions to make any point one wishes.

Typologies, of their nature, are procrustean. A great mind is resilient and regenerative -- always contracting and growing to defy constraint within a typology. -- Ah! but the epigones! 

They are happy to be stretched beyond recognition, or to sacrifice their most useful appendages -- even their hearts -- in exchange for even the lumpiest bed ...
​
Anything, so long as they are given a pillow on which to lay their heads, to give rest to their minds.

Is there a principle sufficient for unreason? Has anyone proposed an unreasonable principle that is sufficient?

Occasionally -- or even often, people behave irrationally. Nevertheless, if they do behave rationally, this is sufficient to explain a decision.

There may be reasons that can explain irrational behavior, but rationality is regarded as its own explanation.

I have striven toward two aims in my thinking: to speak plainly where I can, and to write clearly where I must.

                             ...

Our culture remains superstitious -- believing magic to be real. Speak the incantation and the slumbering horror shall rise from the depths.

In the world of relativism, there are no positions that are wrong. We must afford equal respect to every viewpoint, because they are all of equal worth: nothing. They are worthless because none of them is worth less than any other. Since no vantage is worse, none can be better.

There is no judgment of positions, and so the only question is whether it is spoken aloud.
​
Once spoken, the relativist believes that we must respect a view as equal to our own. The only judgment for repugnant ideas is to silence them.  

Laughter allows an argument to circumvent criticism. 

Once I worried about the role of humor in reasoning. A student would ask the professor a question and he would crack a joke. The class laughs, and the point is never addressed. Didn't Nietzsche have something to say about this? In a world where laughter has been supplanted by clapter, one wonders whether the point has become moot, or whether we might not be in even greater danger.

Isaacs: Methodologically, there is no alternative to thinking.

McLuhan: The medium is the message.

​Therefore: Violence is the only way to truly change the subject.

Even disagreement requires some agreement -- even if only about the means of argument. To refuse to listen at all...the only way to communicate this consistently is through violence (and the refusal to be consistent is a kind of violence). 

​For someone bent on violence, there may not be a way to reason with him.

We try -- communication.
We trust -- as long as there is common ground, we can hope for reason.

As long as there is peace, we can believe that there is common good.

It is not possible to concede every point.

If we grant each other everything, we agree completely. There is thus accord rather than concession.