Arguments: An Inquiry (Conclusion)
In two recent posts, we discovered that the term “argument” cannot be logically defined at all (similarly to “game”, which Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously proved can not be defined by any single essential characteristic or meaning). An argument usually represents a state of conflict, but not always. An argument is usually rooted in a difference of belief, but not always. An argument is usually considered an undesirable thing, but not always. The term “argument” is basically a knot of interconnected meaning, and it’s probably pointless to try to define the word any further.
But that’s not where this inquiry will end; rather, that’s where this inquiry must begin. Here’s a surprising fact the previous case studies turn up: we all spend a hell of a lot of time arguing. We do it more than we’d like to admit. We do it at home, we do it at work, we do it in the car, and we do it in the supermarket, at the bowling alley, in restaurants, at parties … we do it with loved ones, with strangers, with imaginary adversaries, with people in books or on TV. We argue like we breathe. And since we do it so much, maybe we should try to understand it better.
Basically, what I’m planning is a new exploration into the discipline known as “ethics”, the branch of philosophy that tries to find meaning in intuitive human concepts like “morality”, “justice”, “good” and “evil”. This was Plato’s specialty, of course, and my other favorite ethical philosophers include Jean Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich Nietzsche, Soren Kierkegaard, William James and Jean-Paul Sartre. The field of psychology is closely linked to social philosophy, and Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung also addressed these topics with powerful insight.
Sometimes I talk “meta-argument” when I hear friends and family engage in arguments. I like to stop the motion in the middle of a heated controversy and ask everyone to examine what the hell it is we are doing. Usually, people just think I’m crazy and tell me to shut up so they can continue arguing. I don’t particularly want to know what we’re arguing about, but I want to know what we’re arguing for.
So, the inquiry will go on. I’m going to keep covering news and international issues here at the FruitStand, but I’m going to make a point of looking for the 10-mile view, the philosophical angle. The big picture, as they say. Because when I hear people argue … and even when I hear myself argue, I don’t get the feeling anybody’s getting to the heart of the matter anywhere. Let’s see if we can’t do better.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
This “ethics study” sounds promising, Levi. I’m glad you are doing this. While I seldom reply to posts on The Cherry Orchard, I do follow it.
Here is a true story that may have some indirect bearing on the discussion:
Several years ago, a friend of mine annoyed me by saying that he “had no need to win an argument.” Oh, he engaged in debates, and usually proved his points, but if he sensed another person getting the upper hand, winning was suddenly “beneath him.”
Not only was this guy in Mensa, now he fancied himself an Enlightened One. That was ok if he meant it, but I suspected he was as human as anyone. I devised a plot.
Sitting across from my Mensan friend in a Shoney’s booth, I asked my friend to hold a sealed envelope.
“What is this?” he asked.
“I’ll explain later,” I said. “Let’s order. I’m hungry.”
After we ordered our food, I commented, “Lee Iacocca really turned General Motors around.”
“Iacocca is not with GM,” said my friend. “He used to be with Ford and now he’s with Chrylser.”
“No,” I said. “I believe it’s GM.”
We argued over this for a few minutes.
“Don’t you remember,” I insisted. “Iacocca desinged the Buick Skylark!”
“You’re crazy!” he said. “The man works Chrysler! Hold on a minute.”
He got up, went to his car, and returned with a Time Magazine with Iacocca on the cover. It so happens, I knew that magazine was in his car (it might have been Newsweek).
“Open the envelope,” I said, referring to the envelope I had given him earlier.
The letter inside the envelope said,
“I knew Lee Iacocca wasn’t at General Motors. He started out at Ford and then went to Chrylser. I only said GM to prove a point. Did it not feel good to prove thay you were right? To win the argument? Of course it did, because you are human like the rest of us.”
May 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Bill, I love that story! Thanks.