Philosophy Club Meeting
Join us online this Wednesday, Sept. 15 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. for a brief presentation followed by free discussion entitled Getting Back to Productive Argument. (Scroll down for link to join meeting.)
‘Argument’ and ‘dialog’ are closely related terms, often denoting the same processes. Yet there is something decidedly more unfriendly nowadays about the first term, so much so that many of us flirt with if not follow the dictate of avoiding argument at all costs. Argument is often derided as an antisocial party-killer. In contrast, ‘dialog’ has far more constructive associations, as promoting friendship and understanding, something to be maintained as an ongoing process; as something that should never end.
The associations of ‘argument’ are not all bad, of course, but we seem to be backing more and more away from the term as describing something in which we would want to engage. Even though the logical sense of the term is quite benign: a thesis with supporting premises, sometimes even in logical discussions I find myself looking for synonyms to avoid scaring off my audience.
This has not always been the case. Even in the memory of, say, fifty years, things have gotten worse with the collectivity of what we call argument, so much so that the connotations of joining a debate team are quite different than what they used to be. A common conception of debate used to be that of an adversarial process intended to be balanced and conducted with good sportsmanship in order to produce an enlightening result, with winning and losing a secondary byproduct. Those who attended debates did so not mainly to see who would win, but to experience enlightenment.
It is the same with every well-conceived competitive sport or game: that its ultimate purpose is not winning, but to contemplate excellence in some manner, something like beauty, goodness, truth, or virtue. If competition were just about winning and nothing else, then why bother with all the intricate details of a sport? Why not just grab a coin and start flipping, rooting for it to flip heads or tails, donning body paint and placing wagers? In the long run, the fan of coin flipping, like the fans of any sport, will come out “winning” roughly half the time.
American culture in the past several generations has had a particular problem with our conception of competition. Think of the slogans which have gained widespread approval: “Winning isn’t just the best thing; it’s the only thing” (Vince Lombardi, late NFL coach); “Just win, baby!” (Al Davis, late owner of the Oakland Raiders when asked why his team played so dirty); “A tie is like kissing your sister” Duffy Doherty, late college football coach; “Don’t even mention losing to me”, Bobby Fischer, twentieth-century chess champ; “Winning takes precedence over all”, Kobe Bryant; “Show me a gracious loser and I’ll show you a failure”, Knute Rockne, legendary football coach; “Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next”, George Steinbrenner, late owner of the New York Yankees. All of these quotes seem to be suggesting that it is not the beauty or goodness or excellence of competition that counts as much as winning itself.
To be sure, there are many other quotes about winning and competition that do show a deeper appreciation win or lose for things like dedication, effort, courage, excellence, beauty goodness and truth as the ultimate aim of competition. But we are in the midst of a struggle over what competition is for, and when it comes to argument in the public forum, we are losing that struggle. That is why the very term ‘argument’ has come to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.
Even in conversation with other philosophers over the years, I have on more than one occasion been criticized for saying that philosophy is about argument. On those occasions, the correction was something like: No it’s not; it’s about dialogue.
If I thought it a good chance that we could solve our argument problem simply by ceasing to use the term, I might try it out. But the problem goes deeper than words. What we need to do is foster an appreciation for productive argument over non-productive argument. Productive argument is argument aimed at getting closer and closer to the truth of a matter, while non-productive argument is that focused on winning over the audience and defeating one’s opponent, period. The former is productive in the sense that it leads toward greater knowledge, insight and understanding. The latter is non-productive in the sense that it does not. We have to ask ourselves, why we are wasting our time in non-productive argument at all? Why should the focus even be on winning? In productive argument the participants ultimately are not pitted against one another but collaborating with one another toward a common good – that in spite of the fact that they may in the interim have conflicting opinions on the matter being discussed.
(See attached for full paper).
The University of Hartford Philosophy Club Online:
Meetings: Wednesday, 1 p.m.-2 p.m.
WebEx link: https://hartford.webex.com/hartford/j.php?MTID=m41d9f7fef15de4bb58eebaf6645a1ffe
Note: If the link above is not functional, then cut and paste it into your search line or URL line and hit “enter”.
Meeting Password: ACwqT3MBG33 Toll-free call-in number: 1-877-668-4493
Meeting Number (in case calling in): 171 628 0135
An ongoing weekly tradition at the University since 2001, the University of Hartford Philosophy Club is a place where students, professors, and people from the community at large meet as peers. Sometimes presentations are given, followed by discussion. Other times, topics are hashed out by the whole group.
Presenters may be students, professors, or people from the community. Anyone can offer to present a topic. The mode of presentation may be as formal or informal as the presenter chooses.
Please be a part of us as we continue this great tradition online.
Brian D. Skelly, Philosophy
413-273-2273