More on Suess: Bad Philosophy

Yesterday we spoke of the approach which Dr. Suess used in attracting the attention of young readers and even older folks. It may be fun to look at a few particulars in a little more depth.

The Lorax was his famous pro-environment book. It is also rather presumptuous. "I am the Lorax", the title character says. "I speak for the trees."

Interesting, because an awful lot of Americans say they speak for the trees too, and that the trees are telling them that would love to be paper for human use, cabinets for human storage, and baseball bats for human entertainment.

The Doctor spoke out and wrote against many evil things, to be fair, such as racial discrimination and consumerism. But this cannot be overshadowed by his rather absurd faith in moral equivalence. He did not view the Soviet Union as the threat it truly was, believing instead that there were greater threats to our persons within the United States itself. And moral equivalence as a doctrine seems such obviously bad philosophy (does it not put into question issues such as the environment or racial prejudice?) that it is difficult to grant any credibility to his better feelings. How can we accept anything as particularly wrong, or particularly right, when we are at heart ambivalent about good and bad?

Theodor Geisel does not warrant the the esteem we give him. It's as simple as that.