Made of words
/
A strange kerfuffle I recently witnessed on Substack (I still don’t know how Substack chooses what to show me and I suspect I never will):
A Catholic philosopher whom I’ll call Magus recently published a book exploring, as far as I can tell, ways to counter the disenchantment and rationalistic, reductivist worldview of scientific materialism afflicting the modern world. All well and good. This book only came to my attention, though, when Magus published a detailed defense of his work rebutting a review by someone I’ll call Simplicio, a former occultist turned wannabe Chesterton Catholic turned bearded Orthodox firebrand.
Simplicio took issue with one of the book’s later chapters, in which Magus gestures toward the esoteric tradition of hermeticism as a possible model for Christians trying to approach the world through its non-material, eternal valence. In the course of his arguments, Magus used the word magic.
These debates spanned several point-counterpoint essays on Substack and magic was the pole around which all the rest of the furor rotated. Specific points of evidence aside—and this post is not a comment on Magus’s book or Simplicio’s laundry list of nitpicks and criticisms thereof—Simplicio would not let go of the word magic, which he equated with Satanism and devil-worship. Christians are forbidden that and Magus is, therefore, a heretic, a serious word Simplicio was very free with.
Magus countered that this was a straw-man argument and that magic is not a univocal word. It can and does and always has meant many more things than Satanism. He invoked specifically the “deep magic” of Aslan which is, in the same book, placed in opposition to the White Witch’s magic. Simiplicio called this evasive—we all know what magic means.
And round and round we went, with Simplicio insisting on a single, narrow, unambiguous meaning of this word and Magus countering hopelessly that not only is Satanism not what he meant, it should have been clear in context that he used magic as a metaphor anyway.
As it happens, Simplicio is the only one of these people I had heard of. I’ve read his previous books and essays with some enjoyment but, the more I’ve read of him, the more I’ve begun to suspect he isn’t very bright. Hence the pseudonym. But I don’t follow or subscribe to either Magus or Simplicio (again, Substack), so discovering this back-and-forth gave me the bystander effect of the proverbial car crash.
But the moment that stood out to me in all the sound and fury was a joke Simplicio made at Magus’s expense. When Magus, insisting on clarifying definitions of this notoriously vague word, wrote that “it depends on what one means by magic,” Simplicio called this a “Petersonian rejoinder.” As in, the once sharp but increasingly confused and confusing Jordan Peterson.
Peterson has always, as a Jungian, been prone to wandering into what Mark Twain called the “luminous intellectual fog” of German thinkers. Sadly, this has only become more the case as he’s made interpreting religion more and more of his brand, a task for which Jung has badly equipped him. His equivocation and hair-splitting in answer to questions as simple as “Do you believe in God?” reached the point of self-parody a while ago.
But the problem there is not Peterson’s ever more convoluted and recursive search for fine distinctions. The problem, probably, is somewhere within Peterson himself. What made him so powerful and refreshing a decade ago was his insistence that definitions matter, that words matter, that precision is a crucial guide toward the truth. All of that is still true regardless of where he ended up.
What came to mind when I read Simplicio’s little dig was a scene in A Man for All Seasons. When Sir Thomas More, who has resigned as Lord Chancellor of England, learns that Henry VIII plans to require an oath of loyalty with regard to his remarriage to Anne Boleyn, we have this exchange:
More: But what is the wording?
Meg [More’s daughter]: What do the words matter? We know what it will mean.
More: Tell me what the words say. An oath is made of words. It may be possible to take it.
A Man for All Seasons is full of argument of various kinds and qualities, with More’s opponents constantly working to entrap him, catch him in contradictions, or simply embarrass him. Here’s a great sample. The movie is very much about words, and as long as More insists that words tell the truth, precisely and accurately, he is unbeatable.
But he also exceptional, as the movie makes clear and as reality continues to reflect.
