"An Enemy is as Good as a Buddha" :

What follows is irrelevant to the 
informing and instruction of the 
liberal arts—them majors and

minors, posters and capstone events.
It pertains to the provocation and
educing of Liberal Art—ivory tower
academics, say.  Need we argue?

ACADEMICS: Loving The Enemy—

      the worthy opposition

Antithesis. Antithetical. Antagonist.
Antagonistic. Opposite. Opposition.

Are these smiley-face words, or 
frowny-face? Or just words: descriptive—
part of the whole process? How do they
make you feel?

    “In life we make progress by
     conflict and in mental life
     by argument and disputation....
     There must be confrontation
     and opposition, in order that
     sparks must be kindled. 

     Only an open conflict of ideas
     and principles can produce
     any clarity....

Do you believe this? Agree? Salute?

     Even if all were agreed on
     an essential proposition, it
     would be essential to give
     an ear to the one person who
     does not.   J.S.Mill  ]]

Would you fight to the death to 
enable the right for the one person 
who didn’t agree with you to not agree?

"It is the dissenters who force us
to think, who challenge received 
opinion, who nudge us away from 
dead dogma to beliefs  that have 
survived critical challenge, the

best that we can hope for.

Dissenters are of great value even
when  they are largely  or even totally
mistaken  in their beliefs.  As Mill put it:
‘Both teachers  and learners  go to
sleep at their post, as  soon as there

 is no enemy in the field." ’  (Nigel 
Warburton: "Talk With Me.")

Heart of academics? Or not? 
I can imagine this kind of talk at
matriculations and graduation 
ceremonies—but characterizing

an environment?  Can’t walk the 
talk, myself. Antitheticalists and 
antagonists  need not apply. How 
do I cover ground? GetRdone?

Achieve my aims, goals, and
measurable objectives in this 
kind of atmosphere and  alma
matrix?