Anti-Climacus

NITPICKING:

* Everyone loves an anecdote, right? Employed well, it gives clarity to concepts under discussion and helps bridge the gap between theoretical considerations and practice. Also, people love stories (well, most people), and a well-told anecdote can have a quite satisfying narrative arc. When they go badly, they're poorly-sourced 'friend-of-a-friend' stories that stoke fear (if you're lucky, with a racial tinge) that make the teller and the credulous listeners seem, well, ridiculous.

* I would disagree with Ivan Kenneally here, except I don't know where to begin. Quite literally, since the claims are sometimes quite broad ("...in fact, Locke specifically undermines any conception of nature that would inspire reverence for the evidence it gives us of God’s providence") and not sourced. So I could say, for example, that there's in fact an important religious/spiritual (dare I say Christian) element, that Locke does not consider nature to only furnish worthless materials, that he in fact considers both individuals and social obligations, etc, but without knowing exactly which passages furnish Kenneally's interpretation, it's hard to even begin disagreeing. I will say, generally, that the postmodern conservative movement is quite generous with interpretive charity unless the figure in question belongs to anything that might be considered 'modern,' and this lack of consistency is troubling to me. But then, I am allied with the modern (and support Taylor over MacIntyre, insomuch as the two can be opposed), so that's exactly the sort of thing I'd say.