[lit-ideas] Re: Two Lines' Worth ...

  • From: David Ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:13:01 -0700

On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:55 AM, cblists@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> Oddly enough, I'd been just that day reading about the Whig Party (idle 
> curiosity, mixed with still trying to determine, after all these years, the 
> meaning intended by Richard Rorty when he uses the adjective 'Whiggish' in 
> PHILOSOPHY AND THE MIRROR OF NATURE).
One might be forgiven for thinking that Whig is just a synonym for "wrong."  
Butterfield's, "The Whig Interpretation of History" accuses Whig historians of 
sins similar to those heaped on "Positivists" by H. Stuart Hughes--that they 
took the present to be some sort of natural consequence and measure of the 
past, that the present is a point at which the past aimed and to which the past 
somehow aspired.

I, of course, am honored to have been nominated by a party that supports the 
supremacy of Congress over the presidency, though this does make my position 
somewhat awkward.  I am also honored to follow in the footsteps of "Old Fuss 
and Feathers," General Winfield Scott. I attribute my margin of victory to our 
pithy slogan, "Things Will Be Different Now," which in my view is a can't lose 
proposition.
> 
> 
> I somehow doubt that the present pope would laugh.  (But I like to think that 
> Angelo Roncalli would have - and invited me in for a cup of wine and a chat.)

He may be adding grease to the wheels of the rack even as I write.

David Ritchie,
stopping glottals and whistles,
on the Upward Path.

Other related posts: