Argue This!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
My question today is: how can you claim a right way and wrong way to argue?
From a less-than-educated point of view, arguing seems to be at the very basis of human nature; things are one way and we don't like it, so we do what we can to change it. Sometimes we don't like what people think or believe, so we would challenge their thoughts and beliefs by arguing.
The purpose of arguing, I would dare say, is an attempt to do just that: change that which someone thinks or believes through a series of questions and statements geared towards aiming thoughts in a new (or old, depeding on perspective) direction. But since we do just this from such an early age, without any concept of right or wrong arguing, how can one arguer claim to be educated, and in posession of superior and correct arguing technique? A baby exits the womb knowing how to suck a nipple.
Even now, I imagine the educated arguer saying, "But because a baby knows to suck a nipple does not mean any human can or even wants to argue". This is only just because this educated arguer has been told that there a flaw in my statement. I totally presume it's true! They would be correct to say such a thing. The point is that they choose not to allow the thought some space; instead of allowing a presupposition to subside and allow a new thought in, they are taught to defend the new thought--change is the enemy, unless it's in someone else. For the sake of argument, they will bypass the effort of a painted picture for something that is cut bone dry. There is no will to expand.
One day, even I will have to succomb to the inevitable: one day I will have to leran the laws of philosophy and arguing. It is too much a shame, then, that now I would gladly learn the laws of philosophy only to turn around and use them to dispell the said worth of such laws.
If my point comes accross, and someone understands the thoughts and beliefs that I communicate, what more is needed? Only that which is superfluous to our society, and even in our daily conversation: right and wrong arguing.
From a less-than-educated point of view, arguing seems to be at the very basis of human nature; things are one way and we don't like it, so we do what we can to change it. Sometimes we don't like what people think or believe, so we would challenge their thoughts and beliefs by arguing.
The purpose of arguing, I would dare say, is an attempt to do just that: change that which someone thinks or believes through a series of questions and statements geared towards aiming thoughts in a new (or old, depeding on perspective) direction. But since we do just this from such an early age, without any concept of right or wrong arguing, how can one arguer claim to be educated, and in posession of superior and correct arguing technique? A baby exits the womb knowing how to suck a nipple.
Even now, I imagine the educated arguer saying, "But because a baby knows to suck a nipple does not mean any human can or even wants to argue". This is only just because this educated arguer has been told that there a flaw in my statement. I totally presume it's true! They would be correct to say such a thing. The point is that they choose not to allow the thought some space; instead of allowing a presupposition to subside and allow a new thought in, they are taught to defend the new thought--change is the enemy, unless it's in someone else. For the sake of argument, they will bypass the effort of a painted picture for something that is cut bone dry. There is no will to expand.
One day, even I will have to succomb to the inevitable: one day I will have to leran the laws of philosophy and arguing. It is too much a shame, then, that now I would gladly learn the laws of philosophy only to turn around and use them to dispell the said worth of such laws.
If my point comes accross, and someone understands the thoughts and beliefs that I communicate, what more is needed? Only that which is superfluous to our society, and even in our daily conversation: right and wrong arguing.