- Sanjay Sharma
Ex Director, Maastricht University India Institute, Maastricht University
Is it constructive to attempt arguing convincingly (forming opinion) about something not yet known or clear?
The issue in question is the opinion formation on the recent sex scandal involving the IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. While so far no details are out, a French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy has already written in favor of Strauss-Kahn ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-16/bernard-henri-lvy-the-dominique-strauss-kahn-i-know/full/ ) whereas Laila Lalami, an associate professor at the University of California, defends the accuser of Strauss-Khan ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-17/laila-lalami-defends-dominique-strauss-kahns-accuser/full/ )
What is your take on both approaches?