Who speaks for the ordinary man and the anti-intellectual? Certainly not Dingwald, Rankine, Davidson, Campbell, McMorris or Espeut. Their discussions and arguments go on, way over most of our heads.

These great thinkers throw around a lot of what is and what isn't supposed to be true, a lot of history shows this and society says that and then they spice it all up with a host of 'ism's' and 'ologies'. Apparently they know what is true and what is false about such things as science, religion and philosophy and you have to imagine they sleep well at night. But after you've read it all, you still don't know what to believe and you have to wonder what it has to do with the price of petrol going up and are we all going go back to the age-old arguments about God and religion and atheism?

Decades ago, I went to undergraduate school to study philosophy and I used to have all this stuff around in my mind all day long, but eventually I just got tired of the all the clutter and, more than anything else, of watching such arrogant elitists, drunk with their own authority, arguing about it all ad infinitum. Today, such ephemeral ranting piles up on the back porch of my thinking like so many sandwich-biscuit wrappers burning in a barrel.

'inspired leadership'

And, when I look to academia's so-called 'inspired leadership' to help get rid of them, to clear the air of such smoky stench, I'm told that civilised society has no waste disposal system in place for useless ideas, just scandal bags and newspapers to wrap them in for collection and recycling.

Who is right and who is wrong? Well, I'm sorry, but I don't care. And, if you think about it, even if they understood all of what was being discussed, most ordinary people wouldn't care either. So just who gave any of these characters the right to be right, the ability to know the truth?

I am, etc.,

ED MCCOY

mmhobo48@juno.com

Florida, USA