>...Fr Anbrose's post neglected to make that clear at
>all: there were no quotation marks nor other initial
>indications that the text of his post was not written
>by himself, only a simple web-link inserted at the
>end, without comment, <
Apologies for any confusion. I should have identified the article more
assertively.
>.... I have to say that the original [annonymous] author's
"ad hominems" escaped my notice and, on a second reading,
>are still considerably more elusive than
>wearisome.
The author demonstrates a well honed ability to employ the "ad hominem
in abstractum," forstalling any attack against Chrysostom by anyone or
any group. He disparages them in advance - 'contemporary dilettantes'
who have fallen 'to intellectual and historiographical
simple-mindedness,' and 'unthinking observers who simply cannot function
outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity,' etc., etc.
I think the technique is objectionable, but since we have no indication
for whom he was writing, under the circumstances there may have been
justification for this disparaging language?
All that notwithstanding, he does indeed raise some valid points in
defence of Chrysostom.
Fr Ambrose
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|