In constructive debate and dicussion, the audience and writer accept certain rights:
1. to remain unconvinced
2. to perceive a contradiction
3. to require more information
4. to emphasize different ideas
5. to point out faulty logic
The polemicist goes farther than taking away those rights. The polemicist will gladly enter an intellectual debate,but he will always have reached his conclusion before he hears the first argument. He will never agree to question whether his philosophy is ideal, legitimate, or even possible. If the polemicist identifies himself with Marxism, than he will respond to criticisms of his philosophy by accusing the critics of being part of the "petty bourgeoisies". Yet, he will never asses the merits or drawbacks of his view. The polemicist does not see those who challenge his assumptions as partners in the search of truth; he sees them as enemies, whose very existence constitutes a threat. The polemicist always relies on a legitimacy that his challengers are denied by definition.
The polemicists is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty: once he makes up his mind, he will persuade himself that his opinion, by definition, is the most righteous and correct. In the case of Marxists and Fundamentalists, you will often find unshakable beliefs, even when the facts (and indeed, the majority of people) are overwhelmingly in opposition. The polemicists seems to be fully unaware of his own dishonesty.
The polemicist loves to use vague or meaningless nomenclature to label his opponents. Rush Limbaugh has single handedly hijacked the word "liberal", which has dozens of meanings ranging from the capitalist of the 1830's, to the libertarian views of Thomas Jefferson, to porky-pig New Deal big government spenders. Yet, Rush, and most of his listeners, are content with the conclusion that Mr.X is "liberal" and therefore "bad". However this comes as no surprise, as George Orwell once remarked:
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
While our political language blurs our grasp on reality, it unquestionably benefits those who would want us to conform to their views. A great deal of polemicists would see grossly obvious facts, if it were not for the emotions that are involved. But the loyalty of a polemicist to their own reality makes the facts intolerable, thus he will construct false theories to aid in their denial. For example, Mussolini and Marx's "theories of history" boiled down to the future being already set in stone.
Everyone is a polemicist in some respects, and it takes a moral effort to overcome it. One can begin by recognizing that some causes are objectively better than others, regardless of the past means that have been used to advance them. One must reflect upon the source of their beliefs, and than make allowances for the inevitable bias. Once you recognize the existence of polemics, you can begin to overcome its power. As Clarence Darrow once remarked, "Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat-tails."
Post a Comment