THE ASSAULT ON REASON by Al Gore

18 November 2007 | Vanity

[50mm]

I agree that algore couldn’t be considered paranoid, but narcissistic he is:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others. Individuals with this disorder are usually arrogantly self-assured and confident. They expect to be noticed as superior. Many highly successful individuals might be considered narcissistic. However, this disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing.

[Continental Soldier]

Al Gore may well be the Henry Gondorff of the 21st century. :)

[Popocatapetl]

[The Great RJ]

There is no greater assault on reason that Al Gore’s global warming hysteria. Gore’s rants have not stood up to reasoned analysis and have instead have become the dogma of a global warming cult that labels anyone who might question the veracity or analysis of man caused global warming as “deniers”.

[vpintheak]

Algore is an assault on reason. Heck he’s an assault on humanity. Why Lord why?

[svcw]

Algore is an assault on reason.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Very well-written discussion.

As to an "attack on reason," I would argue that the issue is one of philosophy vs. sophistry. The term "philosophy" derives from the Greek words "philo" (meaning "brotherly love") and "sophy" (meaning "wisdom"). Philosophy, therefore, means "love of wisdom," and implies a respect for reality and truth, of facts and logic. The term "philosophy" was developed as a reaction to the Sophists, who argued from a claim of superior wisdom.

If you claim superior wisdom, your arguments can be quite simple: I am smart and you are stupid. Therefore if you disagree with me I am right and you are wrong. QED. That is the sort of "reasoning" which gave sophistry a bad name. And it seems to me that the case can logically be defended that so-called "liberalism" is merely the political implication of the self interest of journalism - which is that talk and criticism be considered superior to decisiveness and action in the face of risk. Anyone who supports that view tends to get favorable press notices, and anyone who opposes it - who believes with Theodore Roosevelt that "It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena" - tends to get bad press.

Journalists and their acolytes claim that journalism is objective, and that is pretty much of a piece with claiming that journalists are wise. And as we have seen, that results in circular argument. Those who question the objectivity of journalism lack the kind of propaganda power which would enable them to get away with sophistry, so they perforce have to resort uniformly to "philosophy" - to marshalling facts and logic to support their case.