Thursday, June 02, 2016
Trump and the Problem of 'Is not'
The problem with getting across the sheer idiocy of the very idea of Trump is like the problem of speaking of 'death.' 'Death' doesn't exist. The word "Death" is a linguistic symbol for a naught, but the existence of the word itself--and its utterance--create the illusion that 'death' is some kind of existent thing. So too when speaking of Trump: to write or say he's 'reckless' or 'ignorant' or the idea he could be president is 'terrifying' or 'idiotic' is to use coherent language to describe an incoherent phenomenon. We grace Trump with plausibility by using plausibly comprehensible language, even if the intent of our language is to argue for implausibility. So how do we speak of the idiocy of the idea of Trump?