Still, I enjoy the academic discourse (I learn from it) while maintaining the opinion that nothing much will be resolved conclusively here even if I thought conclusiveness were achievable . . . which I don't.
Are we saying that the conversation with a tradition, of whatever vintage, is pointless? But the fact remains the old man wouldn't shut up, nor would those who he spoke to and trained. How then does one converse on such a topic -- if not with what was given? I dare say they -- and he -- took more than a minute and a half in trying to provoke -- not end -- that conversation -- because the subject is worth more than that -- and contains more than that. IHTBF is a given -- as the beginning and recurrent recourse of the discussion -- not the end of it. There is a certain impatience in proceeding that will deny the full measure of the process. Is that not the problem, throughout, from both a physical bias, as well as an intellectual or emotional one. ?
I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.