Interesting article on arguments - I just read it.
I think the author confuses arguing with belligerence.
The classic definition of an argument is listing rational reasons for your position, which I think we badly need to recover.
It's true arguing one view can harden you against the other side, but it doesn't have to. Opinionated and closed-minded aren't the same thing, though most people today think they are.
RC Sproul used to assign paedobaptists to write a paper arguing for credobaptism and vice versa. That's a good exercise. It fosters better argument without the rancor and hostility.
Good examples of this today are rare. The Crossfire and McLaughlin Group template is the worst. And people prefer the demagogic monologue of Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, etc. They just want to hear what they already agree with.
Jordan Peterson argues far better than most, because he really listens to the other person, and gives them time to make their case. Bill Buckley's Firing Line was another good example.
Argument is closely related to logic, and detecting fallacies in your or others' arguments is very important. But today pointing out fallacies is usually seen as a moral fault: you are judging or condemning the person making the fallacious argument. This is really messed up. We should be pleased if others can point to a better course of action, or show us a flaw in our thinking. It makes us better people.
No comments:
Post a Comment