> Aristotle, Plato and a whole host of great thinkers, western and otherwise, would disagree. Oh man, you invoked the philosophers! This could have been such a

> Aristotle, Plato and a whole host of great thinkers, western and otherwise, would disagree. Oh man, you invoked the philosophers! This could have been such an interesting discussion, instead we're left with a rather oblivious appeal to authority. Was there something particularly objectionable about the article, rather than a dismissive deconstruction of the title? In The Republic, Plato makes an argument for censoring disturbing imagery. Paraphrasing the inimitable Bernard Knox: the better the descriptions of Hell are as poetry [1], the less suitable they are for an audience of boys and men on whom freedom places the obligation to fear slavery more than death. On the other hand, the crux of the article is this: > To disturb is, among other things, to guard against complacency: to make the reader face the underbelly of dark thoughts and actions, see how circumstances can make even good people go astray if they are not vigilant in honoring the best in themselves and in the outside world. I could nerd out for thousands of words, juxtaposing these two passages, and it'd be a very interesting (although perhaps self-indulgent) thought experiment. But not with this comment. [1] in reference to the Underworld of Homer's Odyssey