Philosophy Club: What's Wrong with Polemicism?

Please join us in Auerbach 320 or online this Wednesday, Feb. 22, from 1 p.m. – 2 p.m., for our next meeting of the University of Hartford Philosophy Club as Brian Skelly presents on what’s wrong with polemicism and why it cannot count as philosophy.

To join the meeting online click the button below. If you have trouble joining, call Brian Skelly at 413.273.2273.   

Some of what gets passed off as philosophy is actually not philosophy but polemicism. There is a subtle but essential difference between the two that goes all the way back to Plato, or even further to the confusion some made then between Socrates the philosopher, and the Sophists, who practiced and taught polemics.  The dialectic method of Socrates was reconciliatory and cooperative at heart,  which Plato contrasted with the Sophists’ competitive or combative method of rhetoric in order to dispel a confusion between Sophism and Socratic argument which had befuddled the previous generation of Athenians, including prominently the comedic poet Aristophanes, whose Clouds, a derisive spoof of Socrates casting him as a practitioner of the worst kinds of sophistry, was instrumental in leading eventually to the capital charges against Socrates that ultimately led to his death. 

Plato advocated for the dialectic method of Socrates – hereafter referred to plainly as dialogue - as a productive truth-oriented argument, even albeit constituting an infinite process that does not produce final answers in a finite amount of time, as essential to true virtue and socialness, as opposed to the divisive rhetoric of the Sophists, which although perhaps yielding short-term private benefits, both political and economic, to its users, was, as a method indifferent if not inimical to truth, was ultimately detrimental to the social order if not kept in check.

Thanks to Plato, no one thereafter confused Socrates with the Sophists, and the difference between them remains the dividing line between the kind of argument that should count as philosophy and the kind of argument that should not. Make no mistake about it; there is no gray area between the two; one is truth-oriented while the other is aimed at the convenience of users to manipulate their audience in some palpable short-term manner, say, to get their vote, to get them to buy something, to get them to clap, or maybe just to get them to shut up.

Notwithstanding Plato’s masterful efforts, we have continued confusing these two traditions of argument down through the centuries, such that some of what may be labeled as philosophy really does not deserve to be, or if so, only as a defect form of it, much like an illness in need of treatment. For at times, under the guise of truth, we argue not for the sake of truth, but for the sake of winning the argument, getting the other side to shut up, or getting others to ignore the claims of the other side; all rather than engaging our dialog partners in the open form, seeking not a palpable short-term gain, but an ongoing reconciliation of views…

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 both in the classroom and online! For more information, please contact Brian Skelly: bskelly@hartford.edu