People haven’t used quivers for quite a few years now, so I assume that it predates the invention of gunpowder. It’s not Aristotle, since Aristotle’s style is dry. It’s not from one of the pre-Socratic philosophers nor does it sound like one of the Stoics. It could be from Plato.

The who: anyone, including myself, who tries to argue religion with a religious person. A few months ago I was in a tete-a-tete with a religious person on this blog (is this a blog?) At the time I said he must have a sack (quiver) of all- purpose biblical quotations (oracular aphorisms)to battle with (to let fly.)
The whom: any religious person.

@Amos - Good deduction!

@Ralph - What I found interesting about the quote is its timelessness. My thought was postmodern theorists.

So, guys, any ideas who it was really about?

If it’s Plato, then it’s probably directed against the Sophists. It might come from the Gorgias.

Nope, not the sophists! :)

The attitude that comes across, it seems someone who has a bone to pick. My guess would be perhaps Nietzsche?

Whatever the true answer, it’s a bit of a Rorschach test, isn’t it? It will sound like whoever you don’t like. Could be liberal theologians talking about new atheists, atheists talking about theologians, voters talking about politicians, old-schoolers talking about bloggers etc etc. The main thing, it will never look like someone talking about you.

@Julian - While it’s trivially true that it’s possible to aim any indictment at any group or person, it isn’t true that this particular criticism can be *plausibly* leveled against just anybody. It has more specificity than that.

Much as I dislike the new atheists, it just isn’t true that “if you try to obtain some account of their meaning, you will be instantly transfixed by another [aphorism], barbed with some newly forged metaphor.”

Same with old-schoolers talking about bloggers, voters talking about politicians.

@Timothy - Ah no, not Nietzsche, though I can see why you thought it might have been.

My first thought was religious people too, like Ralph’s.
But I like Julian’s post a lot: a Rorschach test of people who we (may) dislike (I must add: this quote explains it why…)

@Jeremy -”it isn’t true that this particular criticism can be *plausibly* leveled against just anybody.” No, but it would *seem* plausible to many people. The example of new atheists is a good one. People do say things like “If you challenge them about what God they don’t believe in, they just scoff and compare God to Santa Claus or fairies”, which could be seen as an aphorism “barbed with some newly forged metaphor”. I’m sure the people this quote was aimed at would not say the criticism was plausible! Rorschach tests are all about seeming, not what smart folk claim could plausibly really be there.

I just don’t think it would seem plausible to many people. I think if you leveled that criticism at New Atheists, you’d get bashed for it - probably by your own side.

Your Santa Claus example is weak. The quote is saying that metaphor follows metaphor follows metaphor: that there is never any substantive point.

“They take very good care to leave nothing settled either in discourse or in their own minds”

I’ve never seen that accusation made of the New Atheists. Quite the opposite in fact.

The suspense involved in waiting to find out who this is about is driving me bonkers. It takes me all my willpower not to Google it.

What group did Plato hate? The Athenian senate?

Okay, the answer:

It was Cratylus and the Heraclitans. It’s from the Thaetetus, I believe.

Nice one!

Here’s an excerpt of my favorite philosophical trash-talk. I am almost certain that nobody can name the author without Google.

“You know some who, despoiled by the office of the tax-collector, or urged thereto by some one calamity, have become philosophers in the middle of their lives. Their philosophy consists in a very simple formula, that of calling God to witness, as Plato did, whenever they deny anything or whenever they assert anything. A shadow would surpass these men in uttering anything to the point; but their pretensions are extraordinary. Oh, what proudly arched brows! They support their beards with the hand. They assume a more solemn countenance than the statues of Xenocrates. They are even resolved to shackle us with a law which is altogether to their advantage; to wit, that no one shall be in open possession of any knowledge of the good. They esteem it an exposure of themselves if any one, deemed a philosopher, knows how to speak, for as they think to hide behind a veil of simulation and to appear to be quite full of wisdom within.”

Ben - I’m adding your example to the original post.

Mine is totally unfair.

I’ll have to give clues.

1. He was notable for his connection with a certain lady philosopher.

2. His name rhymes with “sinuses”.

Ben - I think you have everybody stumped here. You’ll need to give us the answer soon!

Yeah, I knew it. You’d never guess it unless you’d read the passage before! Totally unfair game, I admit.

The passage was written by Synesius of Cyrene (the Neoplatonist) in a letter to his mentor Hypatia. It’s one of my favorite bits of philosophical trash-talk.

Synesius is perhaps most notable for his tongue-in-cheek defence of being bald, and for a (regrettably lost) work on dog breeding. Which is to say, not notable at all.

Ah ha!

What do you mean tongue-in-cheek defence of being bald. Where’s the real defence!? I blame the Sorites paradox.

Ha! Well, that goes both ways, too — put it in reverse and you can show everything is hairy.

Synesius’s arguments are quite nuanced and impressive. They are:

1. Hairless things are smarter than hairy things. e.g., most philosophers are bald.
2. Hair, unlike the head, is dead and superfluous.
3. The bald head is spherical, and spheres are a perfect divine form.
4. Gods aren’t bald. And all those pictures of gods with hair are lies.
5. Hairy stars predict evil.
6. The glimmer of a bald head is a source of light.
7. Bald people are healthier.
8. Bald people have strong skulls.
9. Not everybody agrees with those who say that hair is good.
10. All the hairy Spartans died at Thermopylae.
11. Alexander the Great won a battle by shaving his enemies.
12. Bald helmets are literally awesome.
13. Hector (hero of Troy) probably didn’t have long hair, contrary to what some people think.
14. Adulterers and prostitutes have long hair. And you’re not one of THEM, are you?

Ben, that’s fantastic. He doesn’t put a step wrong there. Except may the adultery and prostitute bit. Nothing wrong with a bit of adultery and as for prostitution - well I’m happy to have sex for free, so getting paid would be a bonus.

Best response to solipsism ever:

‘Just take a person who, for some reason other than merely to see what speculation is capable of, denies his own moral vocation and your existence and the existence of the physical world, and lay rough hands on him; just introduce his principles into life and behave as though either he does not exist at all or is just a piece of raw matter; he will soon have done with joking and become seriously annoyed with you.’

Clue is in the quotation. Any idea who it is?

Russell? Moore? James? They all seem like the sorts of philosophers who’d rough up a solipsist.

@James - We should have a “Who Said This?” quiz thing in the hard-copy magazine.

Yours is very cool.