Me on Clams
 |
I begin this post, in Scholastic fashion, with objections to my writing it, and then answers to my objections.
First Objection
I'm not partial to clams. I've always been glad to eat them when others make them, but I haven't been much inclined to make them for others. When I have, it has been from the duty of the moment, in obedience to the culinary imperative, If it can be eaten, it must be cooked. However, is knowledge to be trusted where there is not love? For does not the Apostle write, If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or clanging cymbal. And again, If I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but have not love? Now, love goes out to delight in its object, whereas knowledge takes it in. Accordingly, whether it be the love that loves to cook clams or the love that loves to eat them, where its love is lacking, can the tongue be trusted to speak true?
Second Objection
Contrary to the injunction of the same Apostle, I cannot be trusted not to mention things that ought not to be mentioned among us. Again, contrary to the dictum of the Philosopher that all knowledge is desirable, I have acquired knowledge I find undesirable but must in conscience mention to you anyway. You cannot trust shame to keep me from confessing it to you: I tell you, my shame is not to be trusted. I bid you turn around, gentle Reader, and go back to shore. Do not dive with me into turgid waters to discover of clams what, once known, can never be unknown. If you prove to be of weak conscience, my undesirable knowledge may not only wound your conscience but destroy your appetite.
On the contrary
However, granted I am not to be trusted, I say that others may, to wit, my people and God.
