"A quote is not a sufficient argument." - Myself
I've noticed at times that during sessions of argument -- by which I mean constructive intellectual persuasion -- people will often resort to stating bromides, sayings, and quotes and believe it to be sufficient to make their point. This can be a valid tactic, but not sufficient on its own. Good, strong arguments need a certain amount of content in order to gain strength and validity, and for the most part those arguments cannot be made in concise one-liners. Sayings, quotes, and the like are excellent for summing up or closing arguments, or helping us hold broad ideas in condensed form in our head, but you can't refute a lengthy argument by quoting your favorite line from your favorite author, or even multiple authors at a time, because arguments need to be directly addressed rather than dealt with by deep and broad, one-size-fits-all notions.
To my understanding, two types of people tend to fall into these bad habits: Those lazy ones who don't think about the ideas they accept, and those who don't understand them, at least not yet.
The first type is actually guilty of a moral failing, for they've either accepted their ideas at random or in accordance to what makes them feel good, and therefore cannot defend them with even the remotest of competence. I remember in past arguments some of my opponents sounded like they were quoting Hallmark cards, and in their helplessness just about all they could do was repeat the same stuff over and over again word-for-word. When confronting these people it's best to separate and leave them alone, for their unwillingness to think is the root of the problem and something that's probably not worthwhile to keep dealing with.
The other type is innocent and perhaps typical to young people discovering new ideas or examining ideologies for the first time. They're not that skilled at thinking yet, so there's little else they can do than agree with certain ideas without any way to put them in their own words or to modify them to understand them in new ways, and when defending them they tend to repeat them nearly verbatim accordingly. They may not be competent arguers, but it is a skill they can practice and hone; they just need time. Given practice, they soon should be able to bounce around ideas of their own originality. I myself used to be such a person when first discovering Objectivism. I agreed with the ideas, but was baffled as to why I couldn't restate them in my own words. By being aware of this difficulty I kept thinking about them and now have a much more original grasp than I did four years ago when I started. You just have to keep sticking with the thought processes, otherwise your ideas will be trumped by those who have mastered their own.
But whatever type of person you confront, it must be acknowledged that a concise statement is best to summarize, close, or incorporate into an argument, not to be used as an entire argument on its own.
some comments:
ReplyDelete"I've noticed at times that during sessions of argument -- by which I mean constructive intellectual persuasion -- people will often resort to stating bromides, sayings, and quotes and believe it to be sufficient to make their point."
Hmmm. Most people will not accept this limited definition of argument, especially outside the academy. In fact, doesn't it seem that the "constructive intellectual persuasion" breaks down the moment the bumpersticker thinking comes out?
"...you can't refute a lengthy argument by quoting your favorite line from your favorite author, or even multiple authors at a time, because arguments need to be directly addressed rather than dealt with by deep and broad, one-size-fits-all notions."
Yes. Quite right. To this: first, the study of rhetoric is a long art; many are called, and few are chosen. More precisely, few are able (and see below).
Many also experience "l'esprit d'escalier" - but that's the whole problem: what you WOULD have said isn't what you CAN say, in the moment. Which is why bromides are so powerful ("...man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought — or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone’s authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation." easy search).
"To my understanding, two types of people tend to fall into these bad habits: Those lazy ones who don't think about the ideas they accept, and those who don't understand them, at least not yet.
"The first type is actually guilty of a moral failing, for they've either accepted their ideas at random or in accordance to what makes them feel good, and therefore cannot defend them with even the remotest of competence...."
Now how does stupid end up being equated with sinful? Here's my alternative: thinking is hard work, and most people do as little as possible. This is actually known as the "principle of least effort" so it's hard to dismiss it as a wilful ignorance. Easier to trust the authority of others? To go with the flow? Except, of course, in cases where there's a directly perceived interest. This is also a principle from economics (time preference). But I digress.
It's interesting, isn't it? In writing you can do a lot that you can't do talking.
"Most people will not accept this limited definition of argument, especially outside the academy."
ReplyDeleteIt might be limited, but I mainly wanted to make this clarification for those whose first images of the concept "argument" are people shouting, tossing things, police responding to domestic disputes, and so on. Some people think arguments are always a bad thing, since they never see the intellectual persuasion side about it and only think it means fighting, like between a wife and husband.
"Now how does stupid end up being equated with sinful?"
Because in order to maintain such epistemological laziness evasion will be necessary to some extent, and that evasion is immoral. I've seen people who, when they have challenged the ideas they've passively accepted, will do all they can to evade and distort my position so they won't have to think. My Paleo diet, for instance, has often been treated like a mere taste preference. That person couldn't handle that I was adhering to a nutritional theory different to his, so in order to forgo any urge to examine his views he just pretended I was acting on the basis of taste alone, ignoring any argument or information resource, which is at root evasive and immoral.
In other words, in order to maintain a course of mental coasting a person will need to evade, and that's sinful.