October 18, 2004
-
Every once in a while I get into these useless arguments. I don’t know
how I get into them and I don’t know why I persist in them as they in
no way increase my knowledge or understanding of anything. Well I
suppose they are a little fun though ultimately meaningless.The odd thing is I don’t even know how I get into them. I don’t look
for them and I don’t ask for them. Though I enjoy formulating arguments
I have never been inclined to argue. The back and forth, thrust and
parry rhythm of the debate has never been more that a slight
distraction for me. It is the act of figuring out the ideas that serve
as the foundation of debate that matters to me.These arguments always begin with me stating in passing some sort of
strange proposition that I either believe or am on the verge of
believing. Someone of a thinking sort though perceives for some reason
some sort of contradiction in my words with some fundamental principles
they believe or often have been taught to be true. They then,
understandebly object to my proposition stating their pricinciple and
the facts behind it as evidence for their objection.But I always agree with those facts. I almost always agree with the
principle. At the very least I see that principle as one of many
possibilities equally plausible to explain the phenomenon at
hand. This leaves me in a rather pricarious position in the
arguments. My opposition is absolutely certain of their pricniple and
will argue to no end in the rightness of it. Their goal is to convince
me that my original statement cannot possibly be right because of the
obvious truth of the principle. They often perceive the very act of my
making my statement as an attack upon their principle. Other times they
see my statement as evidence that I don’t understand something very
basic and thus seek to ‘enlighten’ me of the obvious truth.This happens all the time. With people I respect greatly and those I
don’t care so much for. People I once respected and people I learned to
care about. Every time the feeling I have is the same. I think, how did
I get into this mess? My opponent in this debate will do everything in
his or her power to get me to argue against some principle that I don’t
even disagree with in order to be able to ‘win’ the argument by
nevertheless convincing me of the principle or making me back down to
the claim.The problem is, it’s just not that simple to me. I see shades of gray,
possibilities and probabiltiies and uncertainties. Usually in
these arguments I don’t see how the statement I made and the principle
my opponent espouses are in contradiction. I see that both can be
true if you simply perceive the ideas in a slightly different light. So
I almost always start off trying to reveal the connection. But my
opponent will never have any of it. The whole reason they engaged in
the argument was because they perceived a contradiction. They will see
just about any statement I make as a statement against their position,
a statement trying to prove something otherwise. I have often in
these arguments used the words “I agree with you” and “I agree with
that” or “Nothing you’ve said seems incorrect to me” or “Yess that’s a
plausible explanation” but these words never seem to begin to end the
argument. They seem to goad my opponent to argue all the harder.
Perhaps because I always follow those statements with a “but” or a
“however” and try to explain why my initial statement can still hold.
It seems as if they always cease upon the “but” and never really accept
my statements of agreement. In their minds the two statements are
so clearly in contradiction that it is simply impossible for a person
to hold both and they blithely ignore any arguments to the contrary.Its not just that they ignore these arguments. Its specifically how
they ignore it. An argument that two principles do not contradict
is a hard thing to put forth. It will have a fundamentally different
form than an argument for or against something. Indeed since in many
ways it is a pre-emptive argument one that should not even be raised
until the contradiction has been proven to exist, it ends up taking the
terms of hypotheticals and sounds more like a lecture than an argument.
In other words I am trying to guide the person to a new way of looking
at things not trying to demonstrate a demonstrable truth. But my
opponents will have none of that. They will take any statement I make
that hints at being contrary to their beliefs as an argument against
those beliefs. This makes the argument much easier for them actually.
They don’t need to prove the contradiction, they only have to pick
apart precisely half of what I am saying and show that it does not
contradict their position. Not surprisingly that isn’t hard since I
wasn’t trying to contradict them in the first place!To make matters worse there are layers upon layers of uncertainty here.
For one thing my initial statement was almost never made in absolute
terms in the first place. If I did make it in absolute terms I will
always always immediately admit that I misstated it if pressed. I
almost always say something like “It seems likely” or “I think it could
be possible” or “A good explanation might be” etc. In those cases
where I do speak in absolutes and won’t detract them then it is because
the absolutes are an inherently subjective statement that is beyond
contradiction because it is a statement about what I am thinking then
and there and usually about something as changeable as my feelings
about one thingo r another. I will be the first person to tell
you that my beliefs can change in an instant and I hold very little as
so fundamental that I would fight to hold on to it in the face of
changing evidence.And then there’s the opposing principle. My opponent always
states these things in such glaringly absolute terms that it makes me
wince every time. I almsot never think of these principles as being so
set in stone as my opponent. I usually see several alternatives or
variations that my opponent does not or will not see. Or perhaps
my opponent has seen them but has already dismissed them as impossible
and already considers himself to have certain proof of their
inaccuracy. I don’t. Maybe I’m just not privy to the same good
arguments my opponent has seen. Or maybe I just think the world just
isn’t very simple. More often than not though I do think the principle
my opponent guards so vehemently is at its core the most likely to be
true or the best of the possible principles that I have encountered
thus far.Often and more often now than in the past I grow tired of these
repetitive patterns of arguments where I am fighting not to lose a game
where the rules are defined by my opponent and I never wanted to play
anyways. So I start to play my own game and define my own rules. The
games I play are different each time, but they are each an attempt to
gain some value out of the debate I got thrust into without engendering
any ill will.Game 1: Argue against the principle. Here I try my hardest
to prove the principle is just fundamentall untrue. The goal here is to
perceive what kinds of arugments can be made in defense of the
principle and to practice my skill at argument. In the end the results
of the discussion mean nothing to me, I merely use it so that I might
gather data in the form of certain arguments that I can examine later
when I meditate on the subject in more depth.The consequences of game 1 can sometimes be negative as my opponent can
sometimes come to the conclusion that I am either an idiot, or
hopelessly stubborn, or, if the discussion is on a moral issue a
fundamentally evil being. But with the exception of the moral
issues the results I can usually live with. My opponents come away
assured of their superiority but that often makes them surprisingly
amicable to me. Sometimes though for those truly bound to their
position they will come to despise me as one of ‘those people’ meaning
those that don’t admit to the truth of the obvious. This is rather bad
for future friendship but quite worthwhile a thing to know about a
person.Game 2: Argue for alternatives to the principle: Here the goal is
to bring forth as many alternatives as possible and force my opponent
to argue that his principle is the best choice. In this case the
goal is to broaden the outlook of my opponent while at the same time
exercising my creative ingenuity in discovering alternatives to what
may seem obvious. Often I get to invoke arguments by writers I don’t
agree with in defense of my outlandish claims. This makes me understand
their positions all the more and is an activity of great worth to me.The negative potential consequence is that my opponent sometimes comes
to think of me as not sticking with any position, of being unwilling to
come to a belief and defend it. Alternatively they may see me as stupid
AND stubborn. i.e. the kind of person who will, rather than admit they
are wrong, keep bringing up new arguments to try and prove my
point. However, usually due to the breadth of the discussion my
opponents don’t ge the impression that I am all that dumb and often
gain a respect for the depth of my knowledge of the subject or at least
of my creativity in coming up with alternatives. In the end I think my
opponents end up having fun when I play this game and that makes sure
that in the end they are rarely left hostile to me.Game 3: Reveal the underlying questions that no one knows the answer
to. The other two games can safely be called exercises in
rhetoric. Only in this game do I consider it true philosophy. There is,
in nearly every argument, always something deeper hiding behind the
surface. Usually even in the most grounded of principles there are
presumptions that my opponent and I and everyone else have made that
may not be as solid in nature as we may think. A deeper examination can
reveal surprising things and can often become the root of a deeper and
more valuable principle. Sometimes we can even go the full circuit and
ultimately see how a broader principle based on fewer unfounded
assumptions can be accepting of many different statements including,
tada, my original statement. Other times we can even go deper and I
perceive how incorrect or incomplete my original statement was and what
broader statement may better realize the sentiment behind my initial
statement.There are no real negatives to this game. The only problem is, it’s
hard. I cannot do this so well on the spur of the moment. Many times
the principles we are discussing are pretty low level and hard to break
down into their component parts. It takes me time and thought to look
at an issue and even begin to ask the questions that might lead to
deeper enlightenment. Sometimes I don’t even know if there is a deeper
level, though I almost always believe that there is. So usually I can’t
do this unless I’ve already done considerable thought on the subject in
the past and usually not until after I have done both of the analysis
implicit in games one and two either in an internal debate or with real
people. In any case although I have gut feelings above where the
complexities lie in an issue being able to guide someone through them
in a discussion requires effort and study. Really it requires a
lifetime of study…The other problem is that it is sometimes a path that it is hard to
lead my opponent down. Sometimes they will stubbornly refuse to discuss
the other questions, sometimes they will accuse me of trying to
distract from the issues at hand for my own selfish gains, othertimes
they’ll just get bored with it. In any case its fine by me as I can
always look at these questions on my own time and I never really wanted
to get into the argument in the first place.So that’s about it. Those are my three most common strategies for
dealing with this situation where I get into a one sided arguement
wherein I am being maneuvered into arguing for something I don’t
believe in. There are of course other games. Some more
manipulative, some somewhat more honest. And there are games
within games within games. But these three are the ones I use most
often. So next times you get into an argument with me about something
and you find yourself espousing a pretty fundamental principle and I
suddenly go silent for a while rest assured that I have just concluded
that this argument has gone into a realm whereby in its current form it
holds no value for me and I am trying to pick the gameplan that will
shift the argument into a form that is most likely to provide me with
the most value with minimal negative consequences. If I stay
quiet it means I couldn’t come up with a plan or I decided it wasn’t
worth the effort.
