One of the most disheartening aspects of modern discourse is an apparent and complete misunderstanding of the function of debating. Ideas must bear up
under scrutiny. If they cannot then there is something lacking in our understanding
of a belief we hold or the belief system to which we lay claim. The most
important thing any debater can do is to attempt to tear apart their own thesis
by breaking it down into its smallest components then examine each thoroughly
and critically. And of course, those who have learned to argue critically must
also thoroughly examine other lines of reasoning which contradict their own so
that they may be thoroughly examined to the point where they are able to defend
them in an argument. This requires mental and emotional discipline because in a
debate there is no such thing as a, “sacred cow’. The only ‘no go’ zones in a
debate are logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments.
Debate and reason provide the very foundation for western
academia. It is also the foundation for sound governance. Yet today we are encountering
a generation so weak and insulated from challenge that the very foundation upon
which academia and government rests has been torn down by weak minded devotees
of irrational arguments that cannot hold up under scrutiny or critical
examination. Which is exactly what Critical Theory aimed at doing when it first
infected academia. The extent to which it has succeeded is deeply troubling.
And it follows as night does to day that it has corrupted our system of governance
so badly that all the limits and checks and balances our ancestors created to
prevent fools from doing too much damage have been bypassed. I will leave that
for the issue for the moment though.
Back to my purpose in writing this short but important blog.
If you are reasoning with someone, pushing against their line of reasoning using
sound arguments and facts, and they become enraged it is because they are
ideologically possessed. If they accuse you of being a mad man, or of “sewing
socks that smell”, to paraphrase the movie “The Exorcist”, they do so because
they have reached the limits of their ability to defend their position. Just
look at the repeated attacks, almost invariably from the postmodern left (although
undoubtedly the identarian alt right will do the same at some point), against
Dr. Jordan Bent Peterson as an example. The stunning, remarkable and utterly confounding
aspect of this being the fact that they misconstrue and misquote the man constantly
proving they haven’t even listened to his line of reasoning or to the scientific
evidence he provides in support of his position. Now I most certainly do not
compare myself to Peterson yet nevertheless have had experiences where my
argument was completely and deliberately misconstrued. Once that has happened a
personal attack will be immediately impending. At that point it is of no value
to continue discussion since a debate can only either be won or lost IF the
principles of debating are equally followed by both debaters. Sadly, it is no
comfort to know that once the attack becomes personal that they have lost the debate
since the way forward for all parties is through civil discourse. Somehow, in
some manner, this most vital component of reasoned discussion must be restored if
we are to have functional homes and civil society.
