User:AD/Eco and CP

In Umberto Eco's Foucalt's Pendulum, that great Milan author presents through one of the characters a theory as to the four classes of people into which all fall - or at least all writers fall. They are the cretin, the fool, the moron, and the lunatic. All are at least one, and some are all, and the character espousing the theory laments that each type tries to get published.

I thought this apt to describe the nature of Conservapedian editors, and being now possessed of a speculative freedom with the absence of the ever-present threat of a hammer upon my account, I am able to spool out my beliefs on the matter from their tightly-wound coil.

The cretin, according to Eco, is never a threat to the discriminating publisher. When he writes, his nature is immediately apparent. Barely coherent, he manages to do the impossible simply by failing to understand the limitations of reality. The publisher derisively says of them that they "enter a revolving door the wrong way." When asked a question about whether or not the sky is blue, they will blithely say that, yes, they would like another soda. Our only protection from them is that they understand too little of what occurs to truly be a danger.

The fool, on the other hand, is fully capable of replying and understanding, he just miraculously misses the point at every turn. He is "in great demand on social occasions," since he is just understanding enough to be interesting and just stupid enough to be entertaining. The key is that they are always slightly out of step... "fools don't claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs." They are topical enough to seem like they're conversing, but it only takes a moment to see that they lack any essential understanding of the topic.

The moron is regarded as the most dangerous to a publisher (or, perhaps a reader). Eco's character solemnly laments that they simply get their reasoning wrong, not through lack of will or lack of intellect, but a decisive drive towards wrong conclusions. It is almost miraculous at times, but never underestimate the ability of a moron to begin at point A, headed to point B, and wind up in Q.

The lunatic, of the four, is perhaps the most easily recognized. "The moron proves his thesis; he has his logic, however twisted it might be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself with logic; he works by short circuits.  For him, everything proves everything else." If he wants to find a cat, it doesn't matter if it barks.

Now, I wouldn't presume to assign individuals to these different categories, of course ("People of Athens, I would not presume to mention my wife and children in arguing against this sentence"). But still and all, I thought it was most peculiarly apt and worthy of noting.