 |
||||||||
|
12/19/2002 09:17:00 PM | Brad Plumer Re: The Virtue of Independence I suppose I'm having a hard time wrapping my tiny brain around Mr. Stevenson's manifesto for independent thinkers. He claims that independent thinkers (the sort found on the Observer) have the theoretical upper-hand because they rely on reason and argument rather than partisan principles. He then goes on to list his own assumptions. First, independent thinkers adopt the position of skepticism, "solving" the debate between relativism and absolutism. As far as I can interpret, he is basically saying that he's not quite so skeptical as relativists, and a bit more skeptical than those durn absolutists. Sinner that I am, I don't understand this point. All absolutists are skeptical about certain things, and all relativists eventually resort to absolutism in some form. So basically independent thinkers are somewhere around there. That's swell, it really is. Mr. Stevenson, can you tell me which things you are skeptical about, and at what point your skepticism stops? Because if you can, then you are proceeding from first principles just like us partisan folks. Or do you just sort of wing it, wielding your skepticism when you feel like it? In which case you'll have a hard time convincing me that you are undoubtedly more theoretically effective. Second, you assert that "greater knowledge" and "superior reasoning ability" will always prevail. What constitutes "greater knowledge"? What constitutes "superior reasoning ability"? Jurgen Habermas used to say much the same thing-- that in the ideal speech situation language users are beholden only to the force of the better argument. Well, since he's not around, I'll ask you: how do we judge the force of the better argument? Do we just feel it in our bones? Third, how does pessimism towards humanity make you more independent? How was this principle developed--through empirical survey and induction? By reading Adam Smith and admiring the cover (assuming you've read Smith by now... I believe Mr. Waligore called you on this some time ago)? Sir, I trust you will be patient and gentle with my questions. I am but a little mind overwhelmed by the "ontological dilemma of complexity." perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.