|
ok, so:
on plato---he was opposed to direct democracy--to athenian democracy as it existed during the period he wrote---you can see it in a variety of registers, all of which cluster around the notion that there are essences that determine social being, and that these essences are hierarchical....i could talk more about this but it seems like a burgeoning non sequitor.
academic standards===not arguing for those standards, art---i **am** using elements of how i see things that lean on my academic training to critique your position. not the same thing. as for the latter, i really dont see how i could do otherwise; as for the former, i would have to make an entirely different argument, one that would try to rule out your ability to speak if you did not do so in a particular way. which i did not and would not do.
on debate: i wonder about your position---without wanting to let this devolve into a debate about debate (the obvious next step) all i'll say is that if you combine real debate with civility, the making-rigid of positions need not occur. at least i like to think debate can go that way. personally, i treat argument like a chess game, at a certain remove, so i do not often get upset about the way the arguments go--animated sure, but not upset---partly because it is harder to see how to make the next move if you are pissy, and partly because it triggers defensive reactions all around. i dont think it is inevitable. but i dunno--maybe in spaces liek this you are right--i hope not simply because it would make me wonder what exactly we are all doing here....
on conservative ideology---well, art, the way you frame your positions is inconceivable outside that framework. so i oppose an alternative framework. which requires moving into a more debate mode. otherwise, you find yourself trapped within a frame of reference that you cannot control and about which you can say nothing. not only does this cut off the possibility of thinking in a philosophical or quasi-philosophical manner (which often takes off from questions about defining terms) but also anything like a counterposing of real views.
i wish you would react to the last point in my previous post--i really think that it is a better characterization of your position than what floats about now.
and as for trust the govt--frankly, i still dont know what you are talking about really. it would seem to me that arguments that are not explicitly revolutionary presuppose some degree of investment in the existing order. you might think that the current version of that order falls short on almost all grounds, but the fact that one still thinks about the matter and is willing to talk about one's position indicates that there is at least a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the order. i am not sure if opposition to bushworld, even fierce opposition, presupposes a total withdrawal of consent from the govt itself. if you are really arguing otherwise, art, it seems that you are saying that any substantive critique of bushworld (say) amounts to treason. arent you?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|