this isn't entirely true, the main thesis is important and it's recontextualizing and drawing together important strands, i just mean to say that the strands themselves are not new, but what else would one expect
the choice between the ethical and the aesthetic is not he choice between good and evil, it is the choice whether or not to choose in terms of good and evil.
"for all our wealth of historical experience, we do not know how to think about victimhood. almost everything one might say would be unfair, self-serving, undignified, untrue, self-deluding, contradictory, or dangerous."
the best religion, therefore, with peace in view, is the one into which one is born - the one most established in one's country and the one which one is most used to. this is not an attempt to disregard the enormous faults of existing ideologies and institutions.
for in what sense can one be said to support an existing order of affairs if one cannot think of anything to say on its behalf except that it is there? it is an act of perfect dissociation, but not necessarily a retreat from the public world.
i am pretty fond of "the conservatism of universal disgust" as a phrase, but politically it's disastrous and the perfection one achieves is the pathetic purity of ideological complacency.
hm i wonder if it's simply the fact that these are somewhat outdated/inapplicable/out of fashion to us now. would snobbery be included in today's ordinary vices?
"to the extent that one's ultimate goals tend, as they do, also to be one's most comprehensive goals it follows that in many cases one has no decisive reason for the goals one has which are independent of the face that one has them"