On 4/28/2013 7:58 AM, Julio Huato wrote: > 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.
================= No lamentations from me in the above. I've met enough Trots, Republicans and Baptists in my life. People cling to metaphors all the time and build enormous theoretical edifices. Heck, I even remember reading about when people thought phlogiston and the ether were real entities. "The Marxist knows where history *must* go. If the autonomous action of the masses does go in this direction, it teaches the Marxist nothing; if it goes somewhere else, it is a bad autonomy, or rather it is not an autonomy at all, since if the masses are not directed towards the correct aims, this is because they still remain under the influence of capitalism." [Cornelius Castoriadis] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
