I love how people employ sophistry like the above to eradicate ambiguity and pretend morality is black and white.
So in other words, you don't actually know what sophistry means. Good to know.
It's not sophistry to form an interpretation of a work - particularly when that interpretation does not knowingly mislead or omit certain important information. You may not agree with that interpretation, but one of the things that makes art interesting is that (get this!) different people can have different but equally valid responses to the same work.
Yes, there are ambiguities involved with Jud's character, but to call someone a sophist for suggesting that he's not, in fact, a "nice guy" only shows your own ignorance of the art of argumentation, of art, and of the meanings of the words you use.
But then again, judging by the pompous tone of your profile, I get the impression that you're not someone over-accustomed to thinking in the first place. Rather, you're someone who has spent way too much time convincing yourself that you're smarter and more complex than everyone else around you. Unfortunately for you, your words betray you - anyone who writes sentences as wrongheaded and thoughtless (and yet hilariously, undeservedly condescending) as those that introduce your profile is someone who clearly has not spent much time interacting with people or learning how to distinguish personal feelings from objective observations.
Also, a question brought about by reading your profile: Were you sad when your soul died? Or did you view it as a blessed release from the chains that bind all us mere mortals? Your point about the ubiquity of meaningless "thumbs up/thumbs down" criticism is valid - but the introductory sentences serve only as one of the clearest possible expressions of your own inadequacies.
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here
reply
share