2008 Woodie Awards
Singing the Praises of Dialectic
Donovan Martin
Issue date: 5/17/06 Section: Left Side
- Page 1 of 1
A friend once told me he didn't know why I even bothered writing on politics because nothing I said would change anyone's mind or affect the way things were done in this world.
In other words, politics are pointless.
Well, I suppose to a certain extent, I agree with him. I don't necessarily think that I'm going to change everyone who reads my column's mind. However, I certainly don't assume that everyone is even aware of the issues I'm writing about in the first place. The object, for me, is to get these ideas out there and to assimilate information and opinions that I think are important or meaningful to the mass-
es.
It is helpful that I have such an informed and astute colleague such as Joe to share my space with. I think that without the other, either column is ineffective.
I say this because the goal of debate is to arrive at a truth. The problem with politics can be that certain people become so obsessed with their point that they completely miss when some one else has a good point.
Only this recognition of others will enable us to take steps in the right direction and, involved as we are in communities with one another, we will hopefully take that step together.
Thinkers from Plato to Karl Marx have sung the praises of dialectic, the exchange of ideas between people through conversation and debate. That is to say, if you're just reading my column, you're missing the point; ultimately, I feel Joe's article and mine are the same.
The point is not that we disagree, that much is obvious. It is the dialogue between our views that brings the real message to our audience. It may in fact be the case that one of us is right or wrong about a given issue, but I highly doubt one of us correct a majority of the time over the other. It is far more likely that we are both a little wrong about an issue and the truth lies somewhere between or totally outside our registered views.
I have often felt that the "political spectrum' offers a somewhat false dichotomy to which people adamantly adhere. Democrat, republican, fascist, socialist, communist, capitalist: these are all hand words under which we group each other under a common idea.
Ideas aren't concrete and aren't quantifiable and so by what merits do we say that any individual falls under any umbrella category? Human freedom and liberty, justice, self-determination, and knowledge are not ideals unique to democracy. They can be values inherent in any human society.
Now, I'm not saying there is no difference between how people think things should be run or what a good life really is or where our tax money should go. I am saying that, perhaps, we're making these differences out to be a little bigger than they really are.
By isolating ourselves, by chaining ourselves to an ideology so tightly that we cannot abandon it for something better, we will never be free to move forward together.
Thanks for listening everybody.
In other words, politics are pointless.
Well, I suppose to a certain extent, I agree with him. I don't necessarily think that I'm going to change everyone who reads my column's mind. However, I certainly don't assume that everyone is even aware of the issues I'm writing about in the first place. The object, for me, is to get these ideas out there and to assimilate information and opinions that I think are important or meaningful to the mass-
es.
It is helpful that I have such an informed and astute colleague such as Joe to share my space with. I think that without the other, either column is ineffective.
I say this because the goal of debate is to arrive at a truth. The problem with politics can be that certain people become so obsessed with their point that they completely miss when some one else has a good point.
Only this recognition of others will enable us to take steps in the right direction and, involved as we are in communities with one another, we will hopefully take that step together.
Thinkers from Plato to Karl Marx have sung the praises of dialectic, the exchange of ideas between people through conversation and debate. That is to say, if you're just reading my column, you're missing the point; ultimately, I feel Joe's article and mine are the same.
The point is not that we disagree, that much is obvious. It is the dialogue between our views that brings the real message to our audience. It may in fact be the case that one of us is right or wrong about a given issue, but I highly doubt one of us correct a majority of the time over the other. It is far more likely that we are both a little wrong about an issue and the truth lies somewhere between or totally outside our registered views.
I have often felt that the "political spectrum' offers a somewhat false dichotomy to which people adamantly adhere. Democrat, republican, fascist, socialist, communist, capitalist: these are all hand words under which we group each other under a common idea.
Ideas aren't concrete and aren't quantifiable and so by what merits do we say that any individual falls under any umbrella category? Human freedom and liberty, justice, self-determination, and knowledge are not ideals unique to democracy. They can be values inherent in any human society.
Now, I'm not saying there is no difference between how people think things should be run or what a good life really is or where our tax money should go. I am saying that, perhaps, we're making these differences out to be a little bigger than they really are.
By isolating ourselves, by chaining ourselves to an ideology so tightly that we cannot abandon it for something better, we will never be free to move forward together.
Thanks for listening everybody.
Be the first to comment on this story