Eubulides wrote: > Because, of course, only Marxists know what value *really* is or that > so-called 'laws of motion' is/are, axiomatically, the penultimate > metaphor for delivering the one true theory of capitalist societies.
I remember this vaguely, but once Rosa Luxemburg was accused of arguing too adamantly. Horror of horrors, she was trying to tell others what or how to think. This trying to shove her opinions down her readers' throats irritated this or that sensitive reader. Of course, that sensitive reader was a polemical adversary, arguing for the contrary position. I can't remember who that adversary was (Bernstein? Bulgakov?). Anyway, she replied that, since she believed her views to be correct, she obviously wanted others to share them. If she were to change her beliefs, and that was -- of course -- possible, then she'd try with the same passion to do the exact same thing for her new beliefs. One can make the case that a certain mode of arguing is not very persuasive or effective. Or even better: One can make the case that the whole argument is invalid. But lamenting that some people have strong convictions doesn't seem very productive. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
