>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/00 11:37AM >>>
At 11:08 AM 11/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/06/00 05:31PM >>>
>I wish people would try to keep emotion out of debates. Try to be clear and
>logical. Unless you like flame wars, of course.
>
>((((((((((((
>
>CB: Isn't this some kind of positivist or abstractionist foible, to think
>that emotion and clarity of logic are like water and oil ? Especially in
>politico-historico struggles ?
no, Charles. I don't believe in the absolute dichotomy between emotions and
reason. However, since the various movements against the system have a very
long way to go, we have to think long-term. This means that we should try
to avoid taking things personally or making personal attacks. We should try
not to misrepresent other people's views (or use guilt-by-association
tactics) just because of personal dislikes.
(((((((((((((
CB: I agree on no personal attacks within the left especially.
I agree on not misrepresenting others' views or just because of personal dislikes.
Now guilt by association may be a technical logical fallacy, but there is some common
sense truth to "birds of a feather flock together". So, I wouldn't be as strict on
that. For example, if Genovese is hanging out with Neo-Confederates , that tells you
something about the outcome of his theoretical thinking indirectly. That is not
entirely worthless indirect evidence about his theories on slavery.
All in all, however, we are obligated to keep our emotions integrated with our logic
and reasoning. Our emotions are key in linking theory and practice, because emotions
"move" us, are critical to action linked with theory.
