4 ms·

Socrates was already complaining about the sophists and their ability to argue for and against everything (destroying every truth on the way). Don't get me wro

by atoav 3y ago

Socrates was already complaining about the sophists and their ability to argue for and against everything (destroying every truth on the way). Don't get me wrong, I love arguing and rhetorics, but there are people who abandoned all sense of truth and rationality in debate. Rhetorics are a weapon, and like every weapon it should be wielded by people who know that with great power comes great responsibility. Sure, one can argue about objective truth and whether it actually exists, but many who wield rhetorics don't give a damn about any truth, be it objective or subjective — they care about winning. And they don't care about the price everybody has to pay for that win. Despite that I still think putting yourself in a different position to defend is a good lesson, but the goal of rhetorical training shouldn't be to form ruthless mercenaries, but thinkers who can wield the word and still admit they are wrong in an actual, real world debate, when they are shown to be so. If you are one of those people (like me) who likes debate for debates sake, you have to be especially careful. Like people who like to use guns we have to be especially aware when we use it and for what reason. Most people who use their rhetoric have never been given the moral compass to wield it.

P_I_Staker 3y ago
I agree, we should reserect Socrates from the grave from wince he came, and may him Emporiumor of the universe. For good.
caned 3y ago
Sadly, it seems the kind of caution you advocate is conspicuously absent from cable "news" punditry. Even worse, there are millions of viewers who feel that they are being informed by this kind of caustic debate.
- atoav 3y ago
  Many people value good rhetorics above the truth. And I say that as someone who has a high appreciation of good rhetorics.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Many people are more persuaded by rhetoric than truth. Which is a huge problem. It reduces politics to a high school popularity contest which excludes discussions of substance. Real experts lose the debate because they're not trained in rhetorical manipulation, and they can easily be demonised. The idea that experts with PhDs and decades of experience may have more skill and experience than an ordinary person offends the ignorant. ("You don't tell me what to do.") The result is popular support for disastrous self-harming policies.
noduerme 3y ago
Hmm. I don't think the rhetorical appeals to anger, hate and fear that are the hallmarks of genocidal leaders are learned in a debate class. They're low-level schoolyard bully stuff. They're exactly the sort of thing that's tempered by the conscience you develop if you are exposed to new ideas or have to argue something that's strange to you. Hateful rhetoric drives, and is driven by emotion. So is loving rhetoric. If you find you have to defend some group of people you previously had a loathing for, there's a fair chance you'll start to see things from their point of view, if only because it's human nature to become emotionally invested in what you're arguing about. (Check out any stupid bar fight where both sides know they're wrong, but are completely emotionally invested). Yes, speech is a tool and a weapon. We should call out arguments made in bad faith; but we need more people who can identify them to do so.
- atoav 3y ago
  So essentially "guns don't kill people, people do"? My argument wasn't that rethorical training is harmful, my argument was that the specific debate club version of it can be harmful if it isn't accompanied by education that developes the character of those who learn it (my personal opinion is that education that doesn't develope the character does not deserve the name). There is a reason why such lessons are commonly used at "elite" schools like Eton¹. Getting clever at arguing your way into (and out of) things is undeniably a helpful skill for any position of power in society. But ultimately we should remember it is a two-edged sword: The better you make people at arguing, the easier it will become for them to lie to themselves. This is what will happen as a side effect, if they don't learn why they want to avoid lying to themselves, how to spot it when it happens and how to deal with it when it happens. This is not just a character-thing, but something that has to be tought as a core value. ¹: https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-globally/eton-scholarship-exam-asks-boys-to-justify-army-shooting-protesters-dead-8561204/ https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-globally...

by atoav 3y ago

P_I_Staker 3y ago

I agree, we should reserect Socrates from the grave from wince he came, and may him Emporiumor of the universe. For good.

caned 3y ago

Sadly, it seems the kind of caution you advocate is conspicuously absent from cable "news" punditry. Even worse, there are millions of viewers who feel that they are being informed by this kind of caustic debate.

atoav 3y ago
Many people value good rhetorics above the truth. And I say that as someone who has a high appreciation of good rhetorics.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Many people are more persuaded by rhetoric than truth. Which is a huge problem. It reduces politics to a high school popularity contest which excludes discussions of substance. Real experts lose the debate because they're not trained in rhetorical manipulation, and they can easily be demonised. The idea that experts with PhDs and decades of experience may have more skill and experience than an ordinary person offends the ignorant. ("You don't tell me what to do.") The result is popular support for disastrous self-harming policies.

noduerme 3y ago

Hmm. I don't think the rhetorical appeals to anger, hate and fear that are the hallmarks of genocidal leaders are learned in a debate class. They're low-level schoolyard bully stuff. They're exactly the sort of thing that's tempered by the conscience you develop if you are exposed to new ideas or have to argue something that's strange to you. Hateful rhetoric drives, and is driven by emotion. So is loving rhetoric. If you find you have to defend some group of people you previously had a loathing for, there's a fair chance you'll start to see things from their point of view, if only because it's human nature to become emotionally invested in what you're arguing about. (Check out any stupid bar fight where both sides know they're wrong, but are completely emotionally invested). Yes, speech is a tool and a weapon. We should call out arguments made in bad faith; but we need more people who can identify them to do so.

atoav 3y ago
So essentially "guns don't kill people, people do"? My argument wasn't that rethorical training is harmful, my argument was that the specific debate club version of it can be harmful if it isn't accompanied by education that developes the character of those who learn it (my personal opinion is that education that doesn't develope the character does not deserve the name). There is a reason why such lessons are commonly used at "elite" schools like Eton¹. Getting clever at arguing your way into (and out of) things is undeniably a helpful skill for any position of power in society. But ultimately we should remember it is a two-edged sword: The better you make people at arguing, the easier it will become for them to lie to themselves. This is what will happen as a side effect, if they don't learn why they want to avoid lying to themselves, how to spot it when it happens and how to deal with it when it happens. This is not just a character-thing, but something that has to be tought as a core value. ¹: https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-globally/eton-scholarship-exam-asks-boys-to-justify-army-shooting-protesters-dead-8561204/ https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-globally...