Another possibility is that I use a certain style to put forward my views. My attitude is that I will offer my opinion in a strong form, and if you don't agree you will have to rise to the occasion and present a strong counter-argument. I am not dogmatic in the sense of being unconvinceable, I just refuse to be convinced unless you have a strong-enough argument. With things I have thought a lot about, I tend to dismiss arguments I've seen a thousand times. Someone came at me with the "some abstract artists don't know how to draw" argument once and I get very angry. That argument is beyond the pale. If you use it you are defining yourself as someone who hasn't thought very much about things.
The final reason I might be perceived as dogmatic is that I sometimes allows emotions in. I have a personal stake in certain issues, so I get angry. Some people do not understand why it is profoundly offensive to allow Charles Simic a forum to condescend to Robert Creeley. They tell me it is just an aesthetic difference and that I should let it go. I cannot do that.
1 comentario:
There's definitely something to what you say in the first half of this post. My immediate reaction to most of your posts is along the lines of, "that's a stronger, more sweeping claim than can actually be defended." Of course, the natural response to an overbroad claim is not to make an overbroad counterclaim but to narrow/weaken the original claim by offering counterexamples.
Publicar un comentario