“Wrath and Good Faith”
Summary of Findings
1. Good-faith dialogue is conditional
• Good faith requires reciprocity, coherence, and agency.
• When one party repeatedly ignores refutations, shifts premises, or relies on fallacy, their position dissolves.
• Once a position dissolves, continued output from that party is no longer dialogue but noise misidentified as engagement.
• At that point, the other party’s obligation to respond terminates without moral fault.
⸻
2. Agency depends on coherence
• Agency in discourse is preserved only while a position remains epistemically functional.
• Fallacy, equivocation, or contradiction collapse agency.
• Demanding further responses after that collapse is not good faith; it is an attempt to offload interpretive labor.
⸻
3. Misunderstanding arises from level confusion
• Benjamin is frequently misunderstood because interlocutors assume epistemic symmetry.
• Meta-level or ontological claims are downgraded to first-order arguments.
• When the reduction fails, incoherence is wrongly attributed to the speaker rather than the interpretive mismatch.
⸻
4. Empirical contact ends certain debates
• The aphorism “I don’t believe in water; I am thirsty” illustrates performative skepticism.
• Once reality is encountered (the drink), continued denial via reframing (“it isn’t the only water”) is not inquiry.
• Post-verification pluralization is not argument.
⸻
5. Wrath and anger are categorically distinct
• Anger is psychological, affective, reactive, and can be soothed.
• Wrath is ontological and ethical: a response to sustained denial of reality.
• Wrath is not quenched by defiance, appeasement, or reframing—only by recognition or cessation of denial.
⸻
6. Reductionist sources collapse categories
• Sources operating under methodological naturalism (e.g., encyclopedic consensus frames) cannot distinguish wrath from anger except by intensity.
• This is not neutral description but ontological flattening.
• Where teleology (God) is denied, wrath becomes unintelligible by definition.
⸻
7. Boundary principle (core conclusion)
• Charity presupposes a stable object.
• When coherence collapses, continued response produces noise.
• Ending engagement at that point is boundary recognition, not bad faith.
⸻
One-sentence synthesis
Good faith requires coherent agency; when fallacy dissolves a position, obligation ends, noise begins, and wrath—unlike anger—persists until reality is recognized rather than defied.
Son of Benjamin