We've spent quite a bit of time in this class talking about the nature of the public sphere. The good news is that in doing so, I can confidently say that I have a stronger grasp on the nature of people and how we argue than ever before. I feel like my grasp of these "spheres" has allowed me to see beyond the simple desire to argue, and to really dig into the complexities of both people and arguments in general. The bad news is that, also generally speaking, we are trying to communicate our idea of "truth."
While reading Brummett's "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," I was taken aback by the number "three" more than anything else. I guess in some sense, I had thought of an argument as this binary, singular event, and that each party involved has their own understanding of said "truth," and it was as simple as that. The problem is that this is an oversimplification (go figure), at least as Brummet explains it. In this post, I am not going to dig into all three sections, but instead I want to focus on the first, or the "methodological" meaning. I simply want to focus on the fact that what makes all of this so damn complicated is that we often argue with the intention of making people see, as Brummet says, our own "objective and unitary reality." This is where the cluster begins for me.
It's like our class last week. I'm blanking on the term/name, but it is much like the dictionary example and trying to define a single word. You then need to use the dictionary to define those words used to define the first word, and so on and so forth. That should have woken me up more than it did I guesss, but if confusion is a sign of learning....Anyway, I see the idea here. We argue with forced, creative, perspective, and not one that allows or invites "discovery."
Or do we? At this point, I strangely feel like I have a much better understanding of how people argue, yet I find myself in this odd position where I feel like because of that knowledge, I have no idea how to act in the moment. I suppose that if I can communicate to my opposition that I am not trying to persuade them to my truth, but just to understand that I do have a different truth all together, is that an actionable and persuasive enough to work? Or are people really THAT sure about everything deep down in their soul?
Is it this method "discovery" then that is the best option for those who live with a different "truth" than me? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a meaningful argument where I, in the moment, actually changed somebody's mind, or vice versa. Sure, I or my adversary might of changed my/their opinion later on, but pride is one hell of a powerful force. I think in those moments, speaking only for myself here, and only when I had escaped my pride, is where I often went on a massive "search for truth," as stated by Cherwitz and Hikin's. Reflecting on an argument, I needed to prove to myself that I was right, so I starting digging deeper and deeper. It seems like in those moments, I always end up learning something, and my idea of truth changes, at least a little bit. Quite frankly, as I pull in some of the rest of the text, I just don't know if I discovered it or it somebody created it for me.
It's also past midnight, so maybe this was just a bad time to write in general....
Are you talking about differance?
ReplyDeleteAlso, aporia. It's kind of fun, right?
Troy mentioned pride as a force, and I wanted to add, connected to that, that "Identity" is also a very powerful force at work, and often sublimated. My beliefs are a reflection of my Identity, or perhaps constitute my Identity, and they are often rigidified (I think I just made up a word). So alternative beliefs and belief systems threaten that Identity. And that threat is very real and very terrifying, which is why it often takes something drastic (what I call a Watershed Moment) to radically alter someone's already existing beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI think the relationship between pride and force is a wild exercise in causality. Mike's point is excellent in that the loss of pride in an argument is essentially a loss of identity. What I'm thinking about then is how that also reflects the notion of strength and weakness. I think it takes great strength to admit when we are wrong, but at the same time, it also makes you an exceptionally obvious and easy target to those who oppose you. Sometimes taking the high road might cause you to end up in a ditch.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Cameron. It is fun in the most painful way.