IN A letter to the editor at The New Oxford Review, the Rev. Kenneth Baker writes:

Radical informality is an assault on form. Form in our culture has taken a big hit since the 17th century. Jay Richards, in his book God and Evolution, points out that Des­cartes identified quantity with essence and thereby eliminated form. We know from Aristotle that there are four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. Since Descartes, science has discarded formal and final causality; for modern science, the only real causes are material and efficient. One result is that, if there is no form to make a thing be what it is, then each thing is just an accumulation of atoms and molecules that can be arranged in any way. According to this thinking, there is no formal difference between a dog and a cat. And if there is no formal or final cause, then nothing really makes any sense — and you can do or dress as you will.

                                          — Comments —

Paul writes:

Form seems anti-egalitarian because the masses don’t know the intricate forms of the various academic subjects. This idea is seemingly without bounds according to the Supreme Court, which gives everyone the right to represent himself. Recall the insane NYC black murderer that was allowed to interrogate witnesses on the subway. Judges excuse rambling allegations and bad behavior as something that must be endured because of the Constitution.

The pro se plaintiff or defendant is given wide latitude. But why? The right to represent oneself without bounds is as stupid as the right to demand a hospital permit someone to operate on himself or to prescribe his own medication. The miscreant should be given no leeway whatsoever; otherwise it is like saying you not only have the freedom of speech, but you can say what you want because you don’t have any knowledge of the First Amendment.

Please follow and like us: