I do actually sympathize a lot with this attitude, and hope I didn't give a different impression with my comments on Neitherday's journal. It's incredibly difficult to draw the line between the ideal (complete intellectual honesty) and the practical (defending yourself against an oppressor's intellectual dishonesty).
It's also almost unavoidable to make generalizations in the course of speech, especially critical speech. I used to check everything I said for disclaimers and possible exceptions, and it was crippling. It felt like every post was a Xeno's paradox, where every category was divided up so many times, nothing clear could ever be said.
I guess that's why I try so hard to devote myself to "good faith" principles of debate. If the speaker really does at least try to become aware of and correct hidden prejudices, and listeners really try to read in charitable interpretations of ambiguous phrases, there's at least some possibility of real communication. But that leads to a serious problem: what the hell do you do when you're communicating with some arrogant dogmatist -- like a typical "Chaliban" -- who won't argue in good faith? I wish I had a good answer for that. Most of mine these days include the words "punji stakes." :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 08:41 pm (UTC)It's also almost unavoidable to make generalizations in the course of speech, especially critical speech. I used to check everything I said for disclaimers and possible exceptions, and it was crippling. It felt like every post was a Xeno's paradox, where every category was divided up so many times, nothing clear could ever be said.
I guess that's why I try so hard to devote myself to "good faith" principles of debate. If the speaker really does at least try to become aware of and correct hidden prejudices, and listeners really try to read in charitable interpretations of ambiguous phrases, there's at least some possibility of real communication. But that leads to a serious problem: what the hell do you do when you're communicating with some arrogant dogmatist -- like a typical "Chaliban" -- who won't argue in good faith? I wish I had a good answer for that. Most of mine these days include the words "punji stakes." :)