The Value of Arguments

There is a an old saying, “Never discuss Religion or Politics in polite company.” And it is horrible advice. It sets a poor example, says very little of the importance of emotional fortitude, while completely sidestepping the actual problem; which is not the ‘discussion’ of Religion or Politics because they result in arguments, but rather, our inability to engage in productive arguments.

Communication is ‘arguably’ the most important skill in the history of mankind, while Religion and Politics remain as the most influential and important subjects in human existence, respectively. Avoiding talking or communicating about things of great significance seems counterproductive, blatantly foolish, and nothing more than an effective way to cultivate ignorance and stymie intellectual growth. The problem does not lie in the subject matter of a conversation, but rather, in its participants.

We don’t need to stop arguing, we need to learn how to argue better. We need to improve the quality of our interactions with people who disagree with us, especially on contentious issues.

First of all we need to think about Arguments in a whole new way, in the way that they are intended. Arguments have played a major role in the advancement of society, and have been the literal ‘spring-board’ of progress throughout the course of history. Politicians engage in debates to make their case for election, Senators and Congressman engage in arguments to pass bills, Lawyers present arguments to the judge and jury in the court of law, and Scientists develop arguments to support and prove theories.

In our society ‘argumentation’ is imperative to influence and persuasion, and therefore, progress… the social movements against slavery, against cruel and unusual punishment, for civil rights and humane treatment, these all took arguments… it is a skill we should be encouraging and developing, not avoiding and diminishing.

Silence is Not Golden

The story of The Tower of Babel comes to mind: After God punished the mortal souls of Earth for their sin by causing the Great Flood to wash them away in a watery doom, for which he only spared Noah and those on his Ark, the following generations of humanity were a thoroughly dedicated and united people, living all in one place. And they agreed to work together for a common goal: to build a great city with a tower at its center, a tower tall enough to reach heaven above. But, God saw the construction of this tower as nothing more than man’s unbridled hubris and audacity; in that the people of Babel were attempting to raise themselves to the stature of being equal to God himself in an “assault on heaven”.

To deal with and punish the people of Babel for this bold desecration, God disrupts their speech so that they can no longer communicate with one another, effectively sabotaging all efforts to finish the tower, which ultimately leads to their further division into separate smaller groups, with their own separate languages, that eventually spread out into the far reaches of the world.

Moral of the story: without the ability to properly communicate, unity and progress is lost.

It’s Not A Fight

An Argument doesn’t have to be an emotion-filled screaming match, in fact, good arguments shouldn’t be; the point of engaging in an argument shouldn’t be thought of as the same as engaging in a fight or a competition,but rather, a way to improve upon our understanding of each other and of important issues; a good way to think about it is an argument is simply a continuous exchange of ideas and/or statements designed to convince an individual of a claim with supporting evidence and/or reasoning. Nothing less, nothing more.

A disruptive argument can erupt from more trivial subjects than Religion or Politics, such as the dispute of the rules while playing a game. And if this happens it doesn’t mean that we should avoid playing games for the rest of our lives. It just means we need to figure out a way to engage and settle arguments in a civilized manner. And so, the saying shouldn’t be: “Never discuss Religion or Politics in polite company”, but rather, “Always be polite when discussing Religion or Politics.”

Contrary to the general-idea of Arguments being fights or competitions with winners and losers, you don’t actually lose anything by changing your mind or admitting you’re wrong; in fact, you gain something: a new, and usually more sound, perspective.

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” ― Marcus Aurelius

And so, we should instead embrace the challenge of an Argument as an Opportunity to use communication to explain and illuminate our point of view, while broadening our spectrum of knowledge and understanding, resulting in one of two things: (1): strengthening and sharpening our own position by having intellectually embraced such an opposition; or (2): learning something new and/or seeing things differently, and perhaps even changing our mind.

“Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” -George Bernard Shaw

Make Friends, Not Enemies

This is not an attempt to downplay the sensitivity of subjects such as Politics and Religion, as these topics usually entail an unhealthy deal of conviction and/or identity among the parties involved (Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, or Theist/Atheist etc.); which only exasperates the communication-problem, and reveals the key that which locks the door of civil discussion: Division.

“Hate is a feeling that can only exist where there is no understanding.” -Tennessee Williams

Within the arena of Politics and Religion it is entirely common for objecting parties to see each other as opponents, rivals, or even enemies; rather than simply fellow citizens and humans with differing views, or even partners or allies; which undermines the prospect of constructive communication on these topics, and therefore leads to the abandonment of discussion, for the sake of civility, altogether. But this state of comforting-avoidance merely furthers our separation, and shields our relationships from growth, progress and ‘understanding’.

If we are going to engage in a constructive argument on these touchy subjects we need to shed our skins of affiliation, at least momentarily; we need to break down the mental borders of separation we’ve established between the self and the other.

“I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.” -Abraham Lincoln

We must be able to admit with a dose of intellectual-honesty that we are not perfect, that we are subject to error just as much as the person across from us; and realize that inversely this means the person across from us is also capable of being right; accepting that despite the fact that “what we believe to be true may actually be false”, truth does exist, and it is often difficult to arrive at without a critical approach. When we do this it is easier to see the importance of questioning our own biases and opinions, and listening to those who think differently than us.

“It takes two of us to discover the truth: one to utter it and one to understand it.” -Khalil Gibran

And when we are able to find this common ground, and keep the “value of our relationships” at the forefront of our minds, we’re not only more likely to treat others with respect and courtesy, but we gain much more influence.

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” -Abraham Lincoln

Opening Your Mind to Wisdom

When we are able to recognize and focus on the value and worth of a person, and separate ‘that’ from from their beliefs and opinions, we are more likely to be welcoming and receiving of what they have to say; to approach them with an Open Mind.

Philosophy, a word that etymologically means “love of wisdom”, is all about internal reflection and continually challenging our own preconceived notions and/or point of views; strengthening or changing them as we go along in our individual quests of intellectual growth and personal improvement by way of acquiring knowledge. And therefore, our opinions and beliefs should be “fluid” and continually evolving, not fixed or “solid”.

Having an Open Mind means continually exposing yourself to new ideas and information, more specifically in two senses: (1), in the admission of our potential ignorance, that we may not “know” something (which is ironically the first step toward acquiring “knowledge”); or even in reconsidering and rethinking a subject that we’re sure we know and understand already.

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” -Epictetus

And (2), consuming and considering information that may disagree with your current point of view, as doing so is if not more, then just as important, as considering and consuming information that you are already in agreement with; because in order to adequately ‘refute’ an idea you must first be able to ‘understand’ that idea; and being able to understand an idea is a lot more important than simply being able to accept or reject an idea.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — Aristotle

Keeping the Peace

Practicing courtesy and consideration can certainly be a difficult task in the heat of the moment; and any argument can quickly go awry, descending mercilessly into a fruitless and ineffective mess; but there are things we can be aware of to help prevent this from happening, or at least make it easier to avoid, by practicing self-restraint and staying vigilantly aware of our own behavior… because, sometimes the most important part of a discussion or argument are the things that “We Don’t Say.”

Ad-Hominem: This is one of the most common occurrences that derails constructive arguments, and unfortunately it is one of the most common. It is an instance that, whether out of passion or frustration, one person takes the attention away from the subject-matter and places it on their counterpart instead. It is most commonly used as a replacement of a logical point or argument relating to the topic with a personal attack delivered to the opposition. Instead of addressing the opposing person’s stance on the matter, it is an attempt to discredit them by insulting or disparaging their character.

This is a sure-fire way to dislodge any civil discussion, as it will almost in all instances result in retaliation, reducing the argument to nothing more than a series of “knocking each other down a peg”. And, in the end, it does little to actually discredit the argument proposed or points made by the opposition- even if they are, as you put it: inexperienced or uneducated.

Always stick to the substance of an individual’s argument, and fight the urge to address the person instead; and you’ll avoid one of the most common and damaging argumentative mistakes that result in relationship nightmares.

“The poorly sophisticated lacking good arguments are prone to being well-versed in insults.” -Criss Jami

Authority: Pulling rank may work well in the military but it hardly goes over well in friendly discussion; resist the urge to prop yourself up in a position of authority on the matter, even if it is warranted. This is sort of a reciprocal of Ad-Hominem, where you want to use your experience or education to help the other person, not hurt them; and so, if you feel your experience and/or profession (or something else) makes you an expert on the subject at hand, then show that expertise, don’t just declare it.

Remember, when a patient questions a doctor’s diagnosis or treatment, the doctor’s response isn’t simply “..because I’m a doctor!” Luckily for us, doctors don’t do this, they tend to adequately address a patient’s concerns with facts and information pertaining to their area of expertise.

People don’t like being made to feel inferior, and it is an especially poor tactic if you are attempting to persuade them. By attempting to dominate an argument by way of superiority you are inevitably turning it into a pissing contest; because as impressive as your title, experience and/or credentials may be, they actually contribute nothing to your argument without being accompanied by specific details related to the topic.

Put another way, if you are the expert that you say you are then it shouldn’t be at all difficult to present a good argument or counterpoint, rather than just bragging.

“The authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn.” -Cicero

Judgment: Nobody likes to be told what they are doing, or more importantly ‘why’ they are doing it; and they certainly don’t like to be told how they are feeling and/or how they should feel. Leave your psychoanalysis of your counterpart in an argument out of it.

Divulging such a critique of someone, or their opinion and position, will only reverse the course of the argument; by pitting them into a personal defensive stance- when they should be ‘defending’ their contributions to the subject matter, and not their psychological or emotional state.

Let them speak for themselves and show you instead. Take them for their words, and always address the arguments they present, not the feelings and/or intentions that you may think should or shouldn’t be behind them. Keep the focus of your emotional-analysis on yourself, where it belongs, and where it is a lot more useful.

“When you point one finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back to you.” -Native American Proverb

Planting Seeds

This is probably the most important part about Arguments to keep in mind, and it makes it a lot easier to Keep the Peace as explained above. It might seem counter-intuitive, but remember, the goal of an argument is not to win; it’s merely an opportunity for both parties to present different perspectives and/or opinions on a subject or topic, that may or may not influence (or convince) one another, but at least improves upon both parties understanding of one another (and the issues).

It can be hard to not focus on the ‘convincing’ or ‘winning’ part of an argument, but in these discussions we’re just planting seeds, don’t expect a tree to grow immediately. If your argument was persuasive enough, it is more than likely your counterpart will reflect on it themselves and perhaps change their point of view sometime in the future; as changing their mind on the spot (especially in contentious matters, which carry with them a lot of conviction) is all but impossible, and runs too close to the natural (and equally unmerited) risk we feel about ‘losing’ an argument.

No matter how strong our argument is, when we expect our opposition to simply rollover and die (agree with us), we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. But when we are able to understand one another and our differing views, we are more likely to influence one another, or work together toward a compromise that satisfies both parties, and if not, at least give one another something to think about.

“People are generally persuaded by the reasons which they themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”-Blaise Pascal

The Danger of Silence

Properly navigating difficult conversations is one of the most important social skills we can develop in our entire lives, particularly toward relationships. Discouraging and stifling the opportunity and practice of this in the realm of Politics and Religion is by all means ill-informed and counter-productive.

We live in a culture that erroneously portrays silencing and censoring one another under a guise of good manners. Producing a society of people that only feel safe being honest about their political and/or religious views when they are within company that they are absolutely certain is in agreement with them, out of a fear of conflict; and in some instances, will even simply pretend to agree with one another to avoid said conflict… and I don’t think I need to provide an example of the dangers and detriment of Groupthink.

When the reality is, we should be able to comfortably ‘disagree’ with one another without the conflict. If not, then we are creating social schisms of division where we close off our minds, confirm our biases, promote tribalism, and cultivate ignorance- while sheltering our views and thoughts in little protective-bubbles, evading exposure to new ideas, and constricting our intellectual development and growth.

And perhaps most damaging is we not only foster a society that cannot reach compromise, understanding and/or solutions among differing views on difficult subjects, but a society that can’t even come to the table to discuss them.