I was about giving up on reading this post through when I arrived at the pullback, the voice of reason within the write up. It was a relief to discover at end of it all, that reason did not become a slave to the passions.
Philosophers it seems to me sometimes aim to shock for highlighting of stupidity of some ideas, ideas such as ‘reason becoming slave to passions’. This perhaps is following in footsteps of Plato.
Personally, I do not practice subterfuge in my writings. Increasingly, however, it seems to me that there are people, philosophers in particular who write seeming nonsense, not because they believe in the nonsense that they spew, but because in the spewing of nonsense they attempt to gauge the philosophical or intellectual quality of their environment. If there is push back, the philosopher engages in a sigh of relief. If assent, he begins to wonder what exactly is going on in society — assent to nonsense or counter subterfuge?
The takeaway? That people learn not to believe merely because it is uttered by a famous person. Always to think things through for themselves. If not sure what to think of a statement by a famous person, to find sounding boards within their circles of friendship.