John,
I have been here for years. I have also been watching the drivel that you post. I have also noticed that you only chime in on sociological/political posts that you find out of line with your own sociological/political views.
You exhibit the typical thinking habits established in the last Renaissance where argument was the basis of the search for truth and the basis of our adversarial system in science, law and politics. Here we have absolutes and finality and judgment and the confidence (sometimes arrogance), which comes from these. Here we have the mutually exclusive incompatibility, which is the very essence of our logic. Each party cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. The essence of logic is identity and contradiction. In language we deliberately create mutually exclusive categories such as right/wrong and friend/enemy in order to operate this logic of contradiction. Yet there are cultures that find no contradiction in a person being both friend and enemy at the same time.
The last Renaissance revived and polished the methods of Socrates and the other thinkers of the golden age of Greek philosophy. It is possible that the argument method was in use before, but Socrates developed it into a formidable procedure. There is a remarkable paradox in how the revival of Greek argument thinking in the last Renaissance served a dual purpose. On the one hand, humanistic thinkers used the system of logic and reason to attack the dogma that suffocated society. On the other hand, Church thinkers led by the genius of Thomas Aquinas of Naples developed the same argument logic into a powerful way of defeating the numerous heresies that were forever surfacing.
For the purpose of defeating heresy the system was highly effective because a thinker could proceed from common agreed concepts (axioms), such as the omnipotence of God, to logically derived conclusions. The same methods were used to proceed from assumed principles of justice to the regulation and judgment of human conduct. This system of principle, logic and Argument is the basis for our much used and often beneficial legalistic thinking. Where it breaks down is in the assumption at perceptions and values are common, universal, permanent or even agreed.
This argument/logic type of thinking became standard in seminaries, universities and schools. This was because such establishments were largely run by the Church at that time and also because the free humanistic thinkers esteemed the same methods. The paradox is that both Church thinkers and non-Church (humanistic) thinkers found equal value in the methods. Perhaps this is not so surprising, since the new methods were such an obvious advance on existing thinking habits. Central to this type of thinking is the underlying notion of 'truth'. By means of argument that maneuvers matters into a contradictory position, something can be shown to be false. Even if something is not completely false, the garbage has to be chipped away by the skilled exercise of critical thinking in order to lay bare the contained truth.
Thus arose the pre-eminence of critical thinking as the highest form of civilized thinking and the defense of civilization itself. Any intrusion was to be subjected to an intense scrutiny and fierce criticism within existing frameworks, since these were assumed to be eternal.
That critical thinking is so highly esteemed in our civilization has had some unfortunate consequences. Critical thinking lacks the productive, generative, and creative and design elements that are so needed to tackle problems and find our way forward. A high
Proportions of politicians are lawyers and are only accustomed to this manner of thinking.
Is thinking that is free from error good thinking? Is driving that is free from error good driving? If you wanted to avoid all errors in driving a car, the best strategy would be to leave the car in the garage. As in critical thinking, the avoidance of errors in driving presupposes the generative, productive and creative aspects of thinking. These elements are essential for the progress of society. Where are these things to come from? This may not have mattered much in the stable city-states of ancient Greece, where the perfection of existence (except for women and slaves) suggested that any disturbance was likely to be bad or at least unnecessary. It may not have mattered much in the relatively stable society of the middle Ages, when happiness was to be achieved in the next world rather than in this one. But it does matter today. That is why the American tendency to want to
teach only 'critical thinking' in schools is appalling in its medieval inadequacy.
Whether this argument style was responsible for our confrontational style of politics is more open to question. The Greeks bequeathed us both argument and democracy and we have wanted to keep the two together, since we do not know how to operate democracy without argument. Yet there were many cultures which had developed the notion of clash between good and evil (Manichaeism, Hinduism etc.) quite independently of Greek thinking.
Hegel's notion of historic opposition and tension gave rise to the dialectical materialism of Marxism and the energy for its revolutions. Unfortunately this 'clash' system of change is making very difficult the constructive and creative thinking that is so needed in order to make perestroika work in the USSR.
In summary, our traditional thinking system is based on 'truth', which is to be uncovered and checked by logic and argument (supplemented by statistics and other scientific methods). The result is a strong tendency towards negativity and attack. Negativity is seen to be a powerful way of uncovering the truth, resisting disturbing intrusions and giving a personal sense of satisfaction to the attacker.
The most powerful case for the value of argument as a thinking method is that it encourages the motivated exploration of a subject. Without the personal gratification of argument (win/lose, aggression, cleverness, point-scoring) there might be little motivation to explore a subject. There is merit in this justification, except that beyond a certain level of motivation the actual exploration of the subject starts to suffer: argument becomes case making point-scoring and ego-strutting. No person is going to bring to attention matters, which would benefit the opposing side of the argument, even when such matters might greatly extend exploration of the subject.
Now this exercise in mental masturbation was done to define your modus operandi/modus vivendi and why you argue all your points and end up offending most of the people here. The people here don't have the time to waste putting together an argument that would satisfy your NEED to debate all disagreements/differences of opinion.
I work with a number of PhD's that LOVE this form of debate. They are generally very good at what they were trained in but they lack interpersonal skills necessary to be part of a cohesive team on a design project. We define the input needed from them and keep them isolated from the rest of the group. This is because they, like you have to argue/debate in order to “think” problems through. Where as the majority of the people I hire/work with, are free thinkers (creative), able to think outside the box.
I would also like to apologize to the rest of you for this drivel, but it needed to be done!
Now like I said before JOHN just go away!
Robert Parrott
