Dear Stevie,

I am contacting you privately to avoid confusion, and interference by others with what I am about to say. You talked a
lot about love for individuals and dialogue in our recent FB exchange. Those are both laudable goals. You also
spoke honestly about your lack of belief and your frustration with the system. I am concerned about you, not
because I have an issue with any particular thing you have said, but because of a creeping Nihilism that I see a hint
of in what you posted. I am not a Christian either, but I know a thing or two about the foundation of moral valuation,
and I understand that the principles that guide my action have to be the same principles for all. There can be no such
thing as my morality as opposed to some other morality. The minute one espouses such a thing, you have given
up the right to call it moral. Period. Either moral principles are the same for all, or they dont exist. That doesnt mean
that others have to share that belief, or that every individual who claims the mantle of morality is to be believed in
what they assert, rather, it means that as Socrates says, there has to be a perpetual search and self-examination for
the basis of moral action, and that, as Sartre says, "when I decide for myself, I decide for all mankind. The point is
not that I legislate morality for others, but rather, that whatever morality I choose, it has to be universally applicable to
all, which is to say it MUST involve the reciprocity of the golden rule, or ipso facto, it ceases to be moral. Anytime
one is too self-satisfied, or insists only on rights, without considering their origin, or points the finger at others with
moral indignation, or expresses too much cynicism about being able to fix the system there is a serious riskindeed
a moral hazard if you will of failing to take responsibility.

I am not saying you have not done so, and I want to make clear that this is not an accusation. I am only saying,
rather, that I am deeply concerned at the tone of what I saw in your posts that blamed leftists" and did not seem to
understand why others might be concerned at your failure to fairly parse what had happened in Charlotte because
your phone got hacked. It looked like you were blaming with no awareness of how your own conduct might have
played into it. That hack may have not been fair to you. Indeed it likely was not. But when we jump to quickly to point
the finger at those who engaged in these tactics, we often tend to overlook where we are standing ourselves. I
wasnt shaming you for being hacked, but I was surprised at the way you jump to blame others. Thats why I decided
to weigh in.

These are scary times. We have an egomaniacal, mysoginist madman, and serial liar in the Whitehouse.

Cynicism about the possibility of discovering the truth, doubting the validity of knowledge, is what tyranny and
oppression thrive on. Since the shock of Trump's victory in November he has done nothing but try to destabilize the
system in a way that has caused massive public anxiety and has unleashed forces that had previously been
repressed. When no one believes the truth, when the president gets elected after inciting violence and saying vile
things about women, makes up stories about millions of illegal voters, and then tells casual lies on a daily basis, it
creates a state of uncertainty in which its all too easy to say nothing is true, that there is a moral equivalence on both
sides, etc. This is the greatest danger. Its the one Nietzsche foresaw, and its called nihilism. When people fall prey
to it, they are also open to the idea that someone who appears to express strength or commitment to some value,
any value, might be the solution. They are also easy marks for those who martial their resentment against the
system, or the "deep state, (whatever that is) or Jews, or even philosophy professors who are dismissed as
"Marxist sophists. These people are not the creative ones. They are the resentful ones who thrive on marshaling
hatred.

Sadly, after saying he was going to leave the conversation, your Facebook friend, Jaymie Blackthorne, persisted. He
behaved, in short like a total jackass, and had absolutely no desire to engage in dialogue whatsoeveran offer which
I extended, out of respect for you, because I thought he might be your friend. I was also curious about what made a
guy like that tick. Instead, of exchanging in a real dialogue that explained what he meant, he only wanted to
Fuck(his word, not mine) with me call me names and send me pepe memes. He is actually just like Thrasymachus
in Platos Republic. A real prince of virtue that guy. A quick look at his Facebook page confirmed that he is spewing
hate and its full of white supremacist trash about the war on white people, and that he was exchanging tips with
fellow travelers and like-minded individuals about how to avoid detection. etc. What concerns me here is not his
right to say these things. What troubles me is the atmosphere of complete moral relativism the absolute lack of
concern for the truth, because one believes one already has it, and the despair over the prospect of moral inquiry
the notion that everything is suspect and we cant really discover the truth anyway, so every point of view is as good
as every other, so arguments dont matter, so spewing hateful things about other groups on the net and advocating
white supremacy is somehow ok. Its the same the thing the left is doing, etc. Jaymies post is only one example. The
illogic of some of the recent posts on your page is mind blowing.

White-supremacy is not OK and never will be. If the word justice means anything at all it cant be, because it
excludes reciprocity at the outset. To say otherwise is nothing but sophistry pure and simple. Its the strategy that
says: In a fight you cant really win fairly, the best tactic is to muddy the waters so much that no one can figure out
whats going on. That is how you best achieve the strategic objective of winning the argument. The trouble is that
this kind of winning precludes any and all genuine inquiry and dialogue. These sorts of victories" are nothing but
poisoned chalices, that ultimately cost far more than the apparent victories they might appear to gain as they tend
(like all scorched earth policies) to take down everything else of value in their path.

So, when someone (an old professor of yours say) expresses concern about a post that appears not to tell the full
story about your hack, these people feel justified in expressing their solidarity and telling you to fight for your
rights. and "stay committed! , be true to yourself, and stay strong and keep fighting in the face of criticism,
"stand up for your beliefs," etc.. All this solidarity and support sounds really good. It probably feels good, too. But in
fact its contentless because it is without any real foundation. What does it really mean? Be true to what? What can
all that support possibly mean if it emanates from a place of hate, in which you are supported only because you
appear to espouse a point of view that they agree with? What value can it have when that support does not come
from a place of careful self-examination and assessment?

By all means, if they are close to you continue to love those who espouse such filth and illogic. I also had some in my
family who did the same, and they needed all the love I could provide! But to truly love them is not accept everything
they say or do or to support them for the filth they espouse. One has to stand up to it and tell them what you think.
Thats real courage.

As I said before I am really worried about where things are going in our country. In the past one could speak of a
creeping nihilism in Western culture generally. At the moment its galloping and laying waste to institutions and shared
values by the minute. We are living through a time when tyranny is a real danger and the fragile unity that holds this
diverse Republic together could easily be broken. Unlike you I dont think greater skepticism is the
answer. Engagement is. Not necessarily engagement with politics, per se, but with morality. And, as with threats of
terror generally, that means if you see something, say something. Thats what I am doing here. You were always
one of my favorite students: bright, thoughtful, well-spoken and a pleasure to teach and converse with. I dont want to
see you fall into nihilistic despair about the system, because it is always far better to repair whats there, than it is to
tear the whole thing down. On the surface, Plato seems to have advocated the opposite a radical reform of
imposing rule by philosopher kingsbut if you read the first half of the sixth book of the Republic carefully, you will
find that hes saying that the only way to reform the state in times like these is to look after ones own conduct. That
principle is the real foundation of all morality and it doesnt ever really change.

Fondest Regards,

Erich Freiberger