21 October 2008

I’ve been noticing more and more often—and finding it more and more frustrating—that thinkers frequently dismiss their opponents by saying they “assume” such-and-such. That person assumes an antiquated metaphysics; this person assumes a sectarian view of the world. The Gospel of John assumes a middle Platonic philosophy; Anselm assumes a sacrificial economy of salvation. Obviously, everyone does have assumptions and it can be important to bring them to the surface of an argument. But frequently it’s not a matter of blind assumption at all, but a self-conscious decision to occupy this or that intellectual space. Anselm’s whole book is actually an argument for understanding salvation in terms of a certain kind of sacrifice. To relegate someone’s position to the status of an assumption is just a way of avoiding the work of really engaging their position, and relying instead on a repulsion to that position the author hopes is already instinctual in the reader (or wants to nurture).

Comments (0)
Tags: Method