Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I

Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I think most progress past this once they study a bit deeper, age, and generally engage with disparate perspectives--Rorty's willingness to engage with multiple discourses of philosophical tradition is something I think we all ought to try and emulate. There is a bit of an incommensurability problem too. I find that most resistance to understanding thinkers/alternative discourses stems from a lack of foundational vocabulary/knowledge of the tradition they work within, and, seeing as it takes a good deal of work to acquire this knowledge, most instead default to interpreting the work under the terms and limitations of an interpretive framework (e.g. positivism, structuralism, etc.) they already understand rather than approach the new one. There's a certain degree of bracketing--almost in the phenomenological sense--that must occur if we really want to give a text an honest chance to affect us--Nietzsche had a few illuminating aphorisms on this point, I think most of them appear in The Gay Science and Human, All Too Human for those interested. It's a lack of a sort of meta-theoretical awareness required for resolving incommensurate theories and gauging and weighing them against each other. It's easy enough to select a theory, join in covenant with it, and retain your stance. It's much harder to bring said theory into critical questioning and reevaluation on encountering other approaches (after all the opportunities are boundless--one could levy this very critique against this post).