Well, it probably goes without saying that the title was just what I thought of at the moment. I was definitely aware of the parallels between these claims and, say, the Nicene creed. I don't claim to be able to prove any of them (which doesn't mean I can't prove them, just that I don't claim to be able to do so), although some of them I can argue and at the very least respond to why I don't think the counterarguments are persuasively. (Obviously that's what I've been doing in these comments.) Others I could argue if we already assume some of the other ones.
But mainly what I wanted to say about radical feminism here is that it can be, with what I think are mostly minor modifications, self-consistent and not batshit insane, even if one doesn't agree with it. Evangelizing by example rather than argument, as it were. (Which is probably the best persuasive method, in the end. I'd say cathexys converted me to postmodernism more in the way that she modeled it as a coherent (or controllably incoherent, perhaps) intellectual mode of critique, not by any argument as such.
I always find it useful to talk to you. If you disagree with me and I have a reason why I think you're wrong, putting that reason out into the discourse can only strengthen my position. If I don't have a reason, then I'll have to think about it, and then I'll either have to come up with a reason, change my position, or, if neither of those choices seem acceptable, just continue to think about it some more. But in any case it's a win-win situation.
The changes in my position (both where I moved away from Dissenter's position and where I actually moved closer to it) are all the result of realizing there were objections to what I thought which I couldn't answer, and/or else that there were actually answers to the objections that I had had.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-29 12:07 am (UTC)But mainly what I wanted to say about radical feminism here is that it can be, with what I think are mostly minor modifications, self-consistent and not batshit insane, even if one doesn't agree with it. Evangelizing by example rather than argument, as it were. (Which is probably the best persuasive method, in the end. I'd say
I always find it useful to talk to you. If you disagree with me and I have a reason why I think you're wrong, putting that reason out into the discourse can only strengthen my position. If I don't have a reason, then I'll have to think about it, and then I'll either have to come up with a reason, change my position, or, if neither of those choices seem acceptable, just continue to think about it some more. But in any case it's a win-win situation.
The changes in my position (both where I moved away from Dissenter's position and where I actually moved closer to it) are all the result of realizing there were objections to what I thought which I couldn't answer, and/or else that there were actually answers to the objections that I had had.