Dogmatism, Re: BHA: Book notice: Creaven, Marxism and Ralism

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

> Carrol:
>
> >If you say I am wrong, I can argue or agree. If you say I'm
> >dogmatic, what am I supposed to do? Lie down and weep?
>
> You could try changing your tone, after hearing my arguments. I don't
> see any logic to the notion that 'one's own comrades' have a monopoly on
> a dogmatic or sectarian tone.

Let's try it again. If a statement is false or wrong, then that fact needs
to be argued. (And how nicely or dogmatically it's put is then irrelevant.)
If it is correct in substance, then if it is dogmatically expressed it will
have
the effect of dividing people from the truth. And hence its mishandling of
the truth needs to be corrected. I don't really care if Gore or Bush or
Clinton or other liberals or humanitarian bombers "turn people off,"
so I'm not about to object to how they put things. I don't care how
"dogmatically" the RCP (u.s.) expresses it's core politics, because I
think they are pretty stupid however expressed. And if I were arguing
with someone attracted to those politics, I would try to show how the
politics were false.

One other point. "Dogmatism" really labels intentions -- or the 'private'
line of thought a person followed to arrive at a position. Hence to
some extent the charge of dogmatism is open to the same objection
that applies to all attempts to read minds.

Yet another point. It would seem to me that in any discourse, any
piece of writing, parts would have to be "dogmatic" in the sense
of being stated without demonstration. Which parts are partly
(perhaps wholly) a matter of decorum (of suitability of parts to
parts and to the whole -- e.g., of diction to speaker or audience
or occasion, etc.) One of the reasons I have posted lightly on
the current threads on religion on the marxism list is that to begin
with I was a bit taken aback to discover that it was even an
issue -- i.e., I assumed that it was within the decorum of the
marxism list to take materialism (in all senses) for granted. Hence
of course in statements on the substance of religion (as opposed
to discussions of alliances, public policy on religion, etc) dogmatic
propositions were decorous because the issue was already
decided. Gary thought otherwise and took umbrage at my
tone.

And sometimes dogmatic statements can be the framework
for tolerance and friendly relationships among those who
disagree. I don't argue with the large number of people in
the local Depressive Support Group who adhere to various
Christian sects -- I simply state flatly that I'm an atheist
without trying to "convert" them. They state flatly that
they are Christians. We let it go at that and get about our
business. Undogmatic (i.e., potentially persuasive) statements
would lead to undue dissension.

Actually, I'll have to reread your remarks on Creaven to check
the tone in which you used "dogmatic." Were you primarily
distinguishing his premises (dogmatic) from his actual arguments?

Carrol






     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---