How to know if you are reasoning with the ideologically possessed

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.