- This topic has 6 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
There's a word for this, but I can't think of it. It's something like being indecisive. I know sometimes I may go too far in my defense of Islam and Muslims. I think I do this because there's so much anti-Muslim attitude out there and I'm just trying to counter it. And maybe I take the diplomatic approach too far. But maybe not. War should be a last resort with all things, yet I'm also aware that sometimes diplomacy does not work. As I learn, I'll get better at knowing the differenceAnyway, can one actually defend and critisize the same point at the same time? I'm near the end of my religion class, and in some of the discussions, I certainly didn't make any friends. In one discussion, I critisized the Catholic Church for some of their actions during the Middle Ages, yet in the same thread (that turned very anti-Catholic) I came back in defense of the Catholic Church. Same with Islam. There was a discussion there about shooting the Qur'an and I mentioned we are not at war with Iraq or Islam (which is a position I firmly stand by). Man, people went berserck on that, saying that our soldiers are dying and they found it very offensive that someone would say we aren't at war. I was clear about not being at war with Iraq and Islam. I think a problem I see with some people, even myself, is they generalize too much and don't look at every aspect of a situation and don't think about the consequences of certain actions.
Nothing but having an open mind; the ability to hold an opinion but still be able to see the other side (and play Devil's Advocate)… good diplomates can do this.Wally
I think it's entirely possible – and expected with some issues – to defend a position while distinguishing it from related positions, or to set the parameters in which your argument lies. For example, I could argue that the affirmative action originating in the Civil Rights era was “good” in both purpose and practice in its early stages, but that it has since lost its effectiveness or has morphed into a detriment to the underlying intentions of the early initiative. This would be a way of both “defending” and “criticizing” the same position in way…although I'm really just distinguishing closely-related items. I'm sure you could see how someone could also advocate responsible stewardship of the environment without advocating the eco-socialism we see nowadays.
It's called being objective.
But what are the dangers to avoid so "objective" doesn't become flip-flopping? It seems like there's a fine line there.
It's called being objective.
But what are the dangers to avoid so "objective" doesn't become flip-flopping? It seems like there's a fine line there.
You have to acknowledge both sides of an argument before you can even remotely begin to defend a position of your own. Academic writing is not about being "right." It's about being informative and well researched. The fact that you can present both sides of an argument only adds to your credibility. However, at the end of the day you must choose which position has the greatest merit. You then demonstrate to your readers why you think position A seems more credible than position B. If both A and B seem equal, then you have the liberty of creating a third option which is to combine A and B into a new synthesis (a little Hegelian terminology for those of you who like dead German philosophers).
Nothing wrong with picking a side and sticking to it unless you become so dogmatic that you ignore evidence contrary to your opinion. The big problem I see is that people become so obsessed with seeing every side of an issue that they lose a sense of their own identity and stop thinking for themselves.I have probably fallen into this trap with ragard to the current wars in the Middle east. I am perhaps too anti-muslim and I know it. I can acknowledge intellectually that all muslims are not evil would-be terrorists but I have difficulty with that distinction on an emotional level. It is difficult to straddle the fence all the time.I also think that in scholoarly writing it is possible to be objective despite the calims of some current scholars and philosopher that objectivity is a myth.I think Phid hit the nail on the head here. What is needed is moderation and a willingness to listen, even when someone attacks a position we hold dear. Knee-jerk defensiveness is actually counterproductive to solving anything. What we need is informed, constructive, debate, by thoughtful people who do not rule out compromise but at the same time hold to certain core values and principles which by their nature cannot be compromised. Nobody agrees with eveything, but being open to new thoughts is what allows humanity to advance and prosper.
The big problem I see is that people become so obsessed with seeing every side of an issue that they lose a sense of their own identity and stop thinking for themselves.
Thank you! I think this is what I'm trying to get at here and, personally, need to be careful of how far to take it. Looking at Germany's side in the world wars, for example, is good but how far should one go when studying the "enemy"? It seems some people don't when to stop or can't differentiate between "Hitler and the Nazi Party had some good plans" and "Hitler wasn't all that bad". Leftist historians do this a lot I notice.
The big problem I see is that people become so obsessed with seeing every side of an issue that they lose a sense of their own identity and stop thinking for themselves.
Thank you! I think this is what I'm trying to get at here and, personally, need to be careful of how far to take it. Looking at Germany's side in the world wars, for example, is good but how far should one go when studying the "enemy"? It seems some people don't when to stop or can't differentiate between "Hitler and the Nazi Party had some good plans" and "Hitler wasn't all that bad". Leftist historians do this a lot I notice.
I suppose you can be so objective and open-minded that you can actually destroy any thesis you wish to defend. I find this to be incredibly hard to do since we all have biases. In fact if it weren't for our cultural filters and biases, we couldn't argue anything sincerely. There would be no passion in our attempt. Now your passion should never show itself in your writing. Your passion should always be seen in your research. Think about it.
Now your passion should never show itself in your writing. Your passion should always be seen in your research. Think about it.
Are you saying writing should be emotionless?
Donald,You must be a Rankean at heart. I dont think there is such a thing as emotionless or passion free writing. What people do is get so wrapped up in the fact of bias that they ignore any thesis presented because it must be biased.
Donald,You must be a Rankean at heart. I dont think there is such a thing as emotionless or passion free writing. What people do is get so wrapped up in the fact of bias that they ignore any thesis presented because it must be biased.
For the uninitiated scout is referring to Leopold von Ranke. Here's a linke to Questia on him:http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/ranke-leopold-von.jspYes dry emotionless writing is more productive than colorful English 101 type writing any day of the week. 🙂
I don't disagree, Don. And I have a LOT to learn. But isn't writing like “the brave soldiers” or “so-and-so was an intelligent negotiator” somewhat emotional to a degree?It almost seems like you're implying that a writer can't state his opinion or use adjectives that show the writer's judgment. Why can't a writer give his opinion, even if it is somewhat emotional or biased, as long has he has enough facts to back up those opinions?
I don't disagree, Don. And I have a LOT to learn. But isn't writing like "the brave soldiers" or "so-and-so was an intelligent negotiator" somewhat emotional to a degree?It almost seems like you're implying that a writer can't state his opinion or use adjectives that show the writer's judgment. Why can't a writer give his opinion, even if it is somewhat emotional or biased, as long has he has enough facts to back up those opinions?
Your opinion is your supported research. If you are writing to entertain, you will taint your thesis by over emphasizing something or embellishing where you shouldn't. Your task as a scholar is to narrate what the facts allow you to; no more and no less. For example, could you write a biography of Hitler without condemning him? Yes it can be done, but could you do it without even hinting as to what your true feelings are? Most historians fail in this regard because they already had an agenda set in their minds before they wrote the first word. I hate to sound like a purist here, but the best scholarship isn't all about shocking revelations or final judgments, it's about describing events and persons as they occurred with a final analysis on why they occurred (some leeway here), and why it is important to study it. So if you're going to write a history of Hitler, you need to bury your opinions of the man and start with a blank slate and let the events of his life lead you to his final act in the bunker beneath Berlin. Let his story tell itself, and then your final conclusions should be based on what you found rather than what you felt about the man in the beginning. Hitler is an extreme example, but you get the point.
Oh and one more thing. Archaeologists have the luxury of recreating what they think happened more so than historians. Historians have records and sources that can be analyzed, while archaeologists have gaps in the record they literally must dig for. Political scientists have the luxury of dissecting people and ideas for the purposes of fitting them into paradigms and theories; historians do not have the tools or purpose for such things. Finally, philosophers and religionists have the luxury of condemning or praising historical figures and ideas. Historians should have no such impulses as it is their job to report not decide.
