Irascibility makes the world go round

Academic rant of the evening

So Umberto Eco makes a differentiation between reading a text and using a text; not to say that reading a text is intrinsically ‘better’ than using it, but that one is faithful to the Model Author inside the text and one is using it for outside purposes.

I’m grading papers right now and as I read smart people trying to use Buddhist philosophy for environmental or political points, I’m left wondering whether that difference is appreciated or whether there’s always some sort of conceptual violence inherent in most explication.  Here’s the thing: not all sources are creating equal, and not all opinions are capable of fulfilling the requirements for an assignment.  I can find a quote from a seemingly reputable source that can back up almost any point of view; that doesn’t mean that all points of view are equally tenable!  To take a partisan point of view on a subject and then try and shoehorn Buddhist philosophy into it is doing a disservice to the Buddhists, especially when you treat them as means to your ends and not ends in and of themselves.

Maybe I’m an idealist, maybe I’m an elitist, but there’s a big difference between a reasoned and well-argued stance and an opinion.  In most cases, the latter has more emotional weight for an individual than the former, but the former is usually the one that’s actually compelling when subjected to critical thinking.  You can swear up and down that Buddhist philosophy has led you to stance x on position y, but unless that process of thinking bears itself (or at least seems reasonable) to someone neutral on the subject, you’ve done no work for anyone but yourself.  Anyone else who agrees with you is in the same boat, just like anyone who will jump down your throat arguing the exact opposite point based on their own presuppositions.  Why is that so hard to grasp?