both sides to an argument are wrong because they are arguing
both sides to an argument are wrong because they are arguing
The title of this post comes from the latest collection of Laeth’s aphorisms over at his Trees and Triads blog.
Laeth’s observation resonates with me, particularly as it pertains to religion and metaphysics.
I have no qualms about people openly sharing their religious beliefs and metaphysical assumptions. I dedicate a fair amount of space on this blog to precisely that because I find it vital to challenge, explore, and define my core assumptions. In a sense, I suppose you could say I am advancing arguments about my metaphysical assumptions.
Advancing such arguments invites counterarguments. Such counterarguments can be beneficial, provided that they stem from the right sort of motivations, but they rarely do.
On the contrary, arguments of all sorts tend to be rooted in the assumption that argument—with its basis in logic and reason—is a virtuous and unadulterated mode of knowledge transfer and acquisition. Yet the communication of reason and logic is nearly always laced and tainted with virulent strands of rhetoric and language trickery deployed to derail, disorient, and discombobulate.
The argument-counterargument approach is oppositional. Exchanges of this sort rarely, if ever, rise above the oppositional aspects embedded within the framework. What they tend to do instead is trap and entrench both sides into a pointless war of attrition.
None of the above qualifies as new or revelatory.
At the same time, Laeth’s point about both sides being wrong because they are arguing warrants reflection and acknowledgement, especially concerning matters of metaphysical assumptions/religion in this time and place.
Historical/traditional Christianity, as a religion, is founded on a bedrock of argument, yet this bedrock no longer appears to serve.
Two sides pitted against each other with the expressed aim of arguing a way to Jesus is indeed wrong in this time and place. Our task should involve forgoing argument altogether when it comes to metaphysical assumptions.
The title of this post comes from the latest collection of Laeth’s aphorisms over at his Trees and Triads blog.
Laeth’s observation resonates with me, particularly as it pertains to religion and metaphysics.
I have no qualms about people openly sharing their religious beliefs and metaphysical assumptions. I dedicate a fair amount of space on this blog to precisely that because I find it vital to challenge, explore, and define my core assumptions. In a sense, I suppose you could say I am advancing arguments about my metaphysical assumptions.
Advancing such arguments invites counterarguments. Such counterarguments can be beneficial, provided that they stem from the right sort of motivations, but they rarely do.
On the contrary, arguments of all sorts tend to be rooted in the assumption that argument—with its basis in logic and reason—is a virtuous and unadulterated mode of knowledge transfer and acquisition. Yet the communication of reason and logic is nearly always laced and tainted with virulent strands of rhetoric and language trickery deployed to derail, disorient, and discombobulate.
The argument-counterargument approach is oppositional. Exchanges of this sort rarely, if ever, rise above the oppositional aspects embedded within the framework. What they tend to do instead is trap and entrench both sides into a pointless war of attrition.
None of the above qualifies as new or revelatory.
At the same time, Laeth’s point about both sides being wrong because they are arguing warrants reflection and acknowledgement, especially concerning matters of metaphysical assumptions/religion in this time and place.
Historical/traditional Christianity, as a religion, is founded on a bedrock of argument, yet this bedrock no longer appears to serve.
Two sides pitted against each other with the expressed aim of arguing a way to Jesus is indeed wrong in this time and place. Our task should involve forgoing argument altogether when it comes to metaphysical assumptions.
No comments have been added yet.
