an opponent is reviled;
there is no attempt to understand his point of view;
opinions or attitudes are falsely attributed to him.
But we have to understand a point of view before we can know whether we agree or disagree with it! I agree that this deplorable situation exists and suggest that it is because real or perceived conflicts of interest are thought to underlie disagreements. In these islands, to support Irish unification was to be suspected of supporting terrorism whereas to support the United Kingdom was to be suspected of supporting continued social discrimination.
I once argued that every state should be secular and should treat everyone within its borders with full equality, therefore that no state should be Jewish or Muslim etc. A supporter of a Jewish state accused me of advocating a Muslim state and also described me as "That -------, Shackley!"
I think that the automatic mental response is: I not only disagree with but also strongly dislike what this person is saying, therefore I should denounce it in the strongest possible terms even at the expense of forgetting what his view in fact is. I suggest as a basic rule of discourse: quote or summarize the other person's view in terms that are acceptable to him, then reply to what he said and only to what he said.
In the same article, Anderson asks:
"Would it really infringe anyone's constitutional rights if children were to learn something about the roots of their civilization?" (NESFA vol 2, p. 246)
I respond: No but does anyone argue that it would?
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A couple of points comes to mind. I don't see how Western notions of the limited or democratic state can take root in Muslim nations. Because Islam believes in a theocratic merging of mosque and state. It has no history in its doctrinal sources of rendering unto God and Caesar what belongs to them SEPARATELY. It has no history of a church opposing the demands and encroachments of the state. I could go on, but this is enough to indicate my skepticism/pessimism about your comment as regards Muslim nations.
Poul Anderson said: "Would it really infringe anyone's constitutional rights if children were to learn something about the rootso of their civilization?" You replied: "No but does anyone argue that it would?" I comment: there ARE people in the US, mostly on the left, hostile to "dead white males" like Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Jesus Christ, and any other great men and philosophers on whose work and thought Western civilization is so largely based. This hostility extends to the greatest writers and artists of the West as well: Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Racine, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Titian, Velasquez, Michelangelo, Rubens, etc. So, I am afraid I have to agree more with Anderson than with you.
Sean
Sean,
My comment was only that no state should be Muslim. I know that many Muslims would disagree but there are also many who agree. Beliefs and ideas change.
I was just asking the question in response to PA's question about the roots of civilization. I cannot imagine being hostile to the study of the works of all the men you have listed!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, my view is that Muslims who DON'T want a theocratic state or society do not comprise the majority within Islam. It's seems to be mostly WESTERNIZED Muslims who want to separate mosque from state. Iow, not at all likely to succeed, I fear.
Again, alas, there ARE people hostile to the great men I listed. And who do favor rejecting their works.
Sean
"quote or summarize the other person's view in terms that are acceptable to him"
I have seen that called 'steel manning' your opponents argument, as opposed to 'straw manning' it. If possible get him to say that is now expressed better than I could.
Only then if the argument is found wanting can you really claim to have shown the other position is wrong.
Kaor, Jim!
"Steel manning" is better than "straw manning." We agree on that.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment