I
strongly agree that there is a "reality," and my "everyone has an agenda" point
should not be construed to the contrary.
Bobby's point, well taken, seems to be that "You're just pursuing an
agenda" is not an argument at all. And my point was that the standard
comeback, "How dare you accuse me of having an agenda," is also not an argument,
and rests on the (to me) mystifying assumption that there's something shameful
about having a list of things to do based on one's understanding of
reality.
David
Wagner
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 7/9/2003 1:08:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Justin Lipkin
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Agenda"
I can see getting passionate about one agenda over/against others, but
why the flying feathers over the EXISTENCE of an agenda?
I think the reason for "the flying feathers over the EXISTENCE of an agenda" is, forgive the _expression_, deeply jurisprudential or philosophical. Those whose feathers fly over the existence of an agenda typically presuppose that theirs is an Archimedean, neutral vantage point, and all those who disagree are biased, partisan, or ideological. Similarly, there are some who claim that their opponents, but only their opponents, put a favorable spin (is that redundant?) on facts and events, while they themselves depict reality precisely the way it is. Now I, for one, think there is such a thing as reality--see how much I know--but I'm not sure any one perspective has cornered the market on just what that reality is.
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
