Hegemonicretribution
12th July 2007, 12:59
The point of this thread is simple, to discuss, with a revolutionary approach in mind, the most effective approaches to discourse in a given situation.
I will start with the main observation I have made over the last couple of years; during this period I have spent a lot of time trying a variety of different approaches in different situations, and gauging the responses: There is no one approach suitable to every situation, levels of understanding, the meaning that another places upon a word, background assumptions, mood and many other factors impact upon the results moreso than simply the strength of a given argument.
A "strong" argument has often been considered that which is (in a broad sense) logical, valid, consistant and relevant, conciseness is often favoured as well. In my experience of western philosophy there are assumptions of "intellectual honesty" and not necessarily objective, but certainly preferable approaches that are seen as "superior" to others. I would not like to dismiss this all as useless, and indeed it is positive insofar as this has helped establish scientific method, and pushed human understanding foward to point where assumptions are not always facts and one's own line of reasoning does not stand for all; however this whole approach has a lot less application in the real world than we may think.
I have very different peer groups at university and at home, this is not entirely unintentional and has been conscious on my part to allow me to develop as fully as possible my powers of argument. What I have noticed however is that whilst I represent a minority perspective in both instances, championing my own views (or those of others on occassion) is best performed differentially depending upon circumstance.
At university I argue almost as I would write a paper; the language upon which I depend, and the approach of "illuminate, illustrate, evaluate" can be used to great effect against arts students that have a tendedncy to rely upon this for forming ther arguments. Against science students arguments "in virtue of" tend to be more successful, this does not mean that I ever draw a conclusion in these instances, but rather that I seek to remove a factual base from scientific claims (which scientists often deem as being superior to other approaches), it is from this point you can trully pick apart claims as the knowledge of "being right" is often relied upon much more in these cases.
At home my peer group is almost the inverse, a legitimate rebuttal can be along the lines of "yeah...suck my dick" or "FUCK OFF" or some other inspired response. Popularist approaches are also more common, and an appeal to group support is deemed as being superior to an untrusted or overtly intellectual response. This can make discussion appear impossible, but in instances whereby the confines of intelligent discussion are disbanded with there is still a discernable pecking order, and means of resolution (it occurs, albeit differently to how it occurs in "intelligencia").
One of my friends has recently adopted a more hardline NF/BNP approach (all mouth no trousers), along with dismissing most rational discussion (when he can)...however highlighted for me a very important point. Whilst an "us and them" approach makes no sense in terms of rational discussion, and most assumptions of said groups are bogus, the majority of the world is not run along lines of rational discussion and it is not what most people respond to. It might be a good idea to look at the word logically and draw your conclussions as such, but to not make reference to the prejudice and inconsistancies upon which the world is built (other than dismissing them as wrong) is just as inadequate in todays situation as looking at the world without even referencing a consistant and logical approach.
The key is relating to people, not simply beefing yourself up intellectually...this will fail. I am not claiming that "one approach for them, and another for the rest" is how things should go, but I am claiming that logic, consistancy, relevance and validity are themselves incomplete and insufficient means of disbanding with problematic notions of race, god...you get the picture.
The group that dismisses standard arguments without concerning itself with being consistant is much harder to argue against than a team of genius debators that follow the rules, and that is why I surround myself with those who are more inclined to this way of thinking. Wit is an underestimated tool in many cases, and when reliance is upon issue avoidance (especially in a group situation) a sharp and cutting remark in response to blunt and vulgar insult (issue avoidance) can be lethal...especially in a group where a popularity often determines righteousness. Highlighting one's shorcomings in the art of debate smacks of intellectualism and self-importance ("I can debate properly and you are no better than a chimp") but an ability to (when independent from a reliance upon..) weaken another's position and strengthen your own with a variety of different methods is a solid approach in most cases.
The most important thing I have found is to make everything relevant, not to the discussion, but to your "opponent." There might be a brilliant example, or even ten that proove your point, but they are only useful insofar as you can connect with another person (unless you are going for self-satisfaction).
I suppose that apart from a few vaguely personal illustrations, what I am trying to say is that intelligent discussion is great, but in the real world it is not enough. We can't abandon it, but merely "educating" others about it before suggesting our own version of it is counter-productive and divisive.
I would be interested, especially in a philosophy forum, to see what is deemed legitimate debate. Also to see if anyone has any more specific approaches for dealing with those that reject debate (discussion is possible I have found....but I have never found a way of explaining how outside of each and every individual case).
I will start with the main observation I have made over the last couple of years; during this period I have spent a lot of time trying a variety of different approaches in different situations, and gauging the responses: There is no one approach suitable to every situation, levels of understanding, the meaning that another places upon a word, background assumptions, mood and many other factors impact upon the results moreso than simply the strength of a given argument.
A "strong" argument has often been considered that which is (in a broad sense) logical, valid, consistant and relevant, conciseness is often favoured as well. In my experience of western philosophy there are assumptions of "intellectual honesty" and not necessarily objective, but certainly preferable approaches that are seen as "superior" to others. I would not like to dismiss this all as useless, and indeed it is positive insofar as this has helped establish scientific method, and pushed human understanding foward to point where assumptions are not always facts and one's own line of reasoning does not stand for all; however this whole approach has a lot less application in the real world than we may think.
I have very different peer groups at university and at home, this is not entirely unintentional and has been conscious on my part to allow me to develop as fully as possible my powers of argument. What I have noticed however is that whilst I represent a minority perspective in both instances, championing my own views (or those of others on occassion) is best performed differentially depending upon circumstance.
At university I argue almost as I would write a paper; the language upon which I depend, and the approach of "illuminate, illustrate, evaluate" can be used to great effect against arts students that have a tendedncy to rely upon this for forming ther arguments. Against science students arguments "in virtue of" tend to be more successful, this does not mean that I ever draw a conclusion in these instances, but rather that I seek to remove a factual base from scientific claims (which scientists often deem as being superior to other approaches), it is from this point you can trully pick apart claims as the knowledge of "being right" is often relied upon much more in these cases.
At home my peer group is almost the inverse, a legitimate rebuttal can be along the lines of "yeah...suck my dick" or "FUCK OFF" or some other inspired response. Popularist approaches are also more common, and an appeal to group support is deemed as being superior to an untrusted or overtly intellectual response. This can make discussion appear impossible, but in instances whereby the confines of intelligent discussion are disbanded with there is still a discernable pecking order, and means of resolution (it occurs, albeit differently to how it occurs in "intelligencia").
One of my friends has recently adopted a more hardline NF/BNP approach (all mouth no trousers), along with dismissing most rational discussion (when he can)...however highlighted for me a very important point. Whilst an "us and them" approach makes no sense in terms of rational discussion, and most assumptions of said groups are bogus, the majority of the world is not run along lines of rational discussion and it is not what most people respond to. It might be a good idea to look at the word logically and draw your conclussions as such, but to not make reference to the prejudice and inconsistancies upon which the world is built (other than dismissing them as wrong) is just as inadequate in todays situation as looking at the world without even referencing a consistant and logical approach.
The key is relating to people, not simply beefing yourself up intellectually...this will fail. I am not claiming that "one approach for them, and another for the rest" is how things should go, but I am claiming that logic, consistancy, relevance and validity are themselves incomplete and insufficient means of disbanding with problematic notions of race, god...you get the picture.
The group that dismisses standard arguments without concerning itself with being consistant is much harder to argue against than a team of genius debators that follow the rules, and that is why I surround myself with those who are more inclined to this way of thinking. Wit is an underestimated tool in many cases, and when reliance is upon issue avoidance (especially in a group situation) a sharp and cutting remark in response to blunt and vulgar insult (issue avoidance) can be lethal...especially in a group where a popularity often determines righteousness. Highlighting one's shorcomings in the art of debate smacks of intellectualism and self-importance ("I can debate properly and you are no better than a chimp") but an ability to (when independent from a reliance upon..) weaken another's position and strengthen your own with a variety of different methods is a solid approach in most cases.
The most important thing I have found is to make everything relevant, not to the discussion, but to your "opponent." There might be a brilliant example, or even ten that proove your point, but they are only useful insofar as you can connect with another person (unless you are going for self-satisfaction).
I suppose that apart from a few vaguely personal illustrations, what I am trying to say is that intelligent discussion is great, but in the real world it is not enough. We can't abandon it, but merely "educating" others about it before suggesting our own version of it is counter-productive and divisive.
I would be interested, especially in a philosophy forum, to see what is deemed legitimate debate. Also to see if anyone has any more specific approaches for dealing with those that reject debate (discussion is possible I have found....but I have never found a way of explaining how outside of each and every individual case).