Imagine the following scenario:
Four people were talking about the economic consequences of a Congressional bill: A, B, C, and D. B said that the bill does X. C, however, challenged that the bill is only a smoke screen, that it achieves Y instead of the promised X. A, quite mad about how the conversation is going, texts privately to D about how C is acting knowledgeably on economic matters. D replies not to consider C's arguments because C does not have a degree in economics.
What D said to A is a fallacy. Just because someone does not have a degree does not necessarily mean that the other is incapable of talking about a subject at hand. For all D knows, C had a private economics tutor. Heck, for all D knows, C had the privilege of having a free private tutor for history, philosophy, psychology, and mathematics while pursuing his literature major. After all, there's only so much a university allows you to learn.
Even if it were not the case, anyone with resources can subscribe to scholarly journals and keep up with the scholarly world of any type. We also have a beautiful gift of internet also. There are many gratuitous health-tip websites where we can learn about various health issues, both physical and mental. There is a wealth of videos where top scholars give succinct lectures on how certain things work.
Perhaps in the middle ages it was true that a person without a particular certification lacked credibility. Not in our day and age, however. People are equipped with eyes to read, ears to comprehend, brains to comprehend, and thinking skills to absorb a variety of information.
So before you are tempted to attack your opponent's intellectual authority on a contended matter, remember that an argument is won through sound reasoning, not credibility. Even Supreme Court justices make the simplest logical fallacies in their opinions. To do otherwise and shut down conversations with accusations of lack of understanding would be unduly prejudicial.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Politics of Empty Charity
We have but to open our CNN or Facebook app to see an opinion piece filled with emotional epithets accusing a political faction of idiocy. Such articles would be filled with ideology-specific jargon that is meant to rally those who already agree, and rhetoric with unsubstantiated and unreasoned thoughts. When shared on Facebook, the one sharing the opinion piece would double-up on ideology-specific jargon and her friends would wrap her in a narcissistic, self-affirmative bubble made of 'likes.' On the comment section, some one would comment, "A well thought-out article!" when there is no cohesive thought to extract from; only emotional babble. The one who shared such an article, after seeing what she considers to be positive reactions, would feel politically aware and "smart." When the article takes a moral position, she would feel morally superior too. And when there are people opposing her, she would consider the opposition anathema, being liable to have negative labels hurled at them.
We see what has been mentioned too often, do we not? Perhaps you are guilty of it. Perhaps you're the one going around affirming people by "liking" others' statuses and comments based solely on your impulse as opposed to meditated thoughts. Perhaps you are guilty of hurling negative labels at others for supporting a politician or that politician's policies. Perhaps you justify doing all these things with a moral cause, that you are doing such things out of charity. If you are are guilty of the assumptions I've made, and if you have not caught on to my cynical tone yet, I am highly doubtful that you are actually driven by charity.
In a society requiring us to be politically engaged, the whole point of sharing our thoughts is to convince people. The primary motive for trying to convince others that a particular policy is better should be for the betterment of our society. In wishing the betterment of our society, we exercise charity. But I have found that some people are not sharing their thoughts to convince others. Rather, they do so to prove themselves.
It is a dogmatic psychological principle that human reactions often reveal wherein their affections lie. Where there is a calm and civil discourse, we know that there is charity and respect for others involved. For the love of others, they desire the best idea - the truth - to come out on top regardless of who is right. Where there is anger and obscenity, however, we know that the primary motive is not charity but rather pride. For the love of self, they desire their own idea to come out on top, regardless of the truth. The expressed charity would then be empty like a shell without its meat.
Allow me to use real life examples. I am against travel ban President Trump has, and is continuing to, support. But this will not blind me from realizing some sense in the other side's argument. It is statistically proven, from what has been gathered from Europe, that letting in refugees en masse from the seven war-torn areas is a big risk to take. Crime rate, especially rape, has skyrocketed in countries that allowed a mass of immigrants in from those countries. Further, the frequency of terror attacks have risen also. Considering all this, I do not think it's "Islamophobic," "bigoted," or "irrational" to support temporary travel ban. It's a legitimate moral dilemma: Should we take no risk for the love of our own or should we take the risk for the love of others?
In light of this, hurling negative labels and resorting to angry protesting with ludicrous signs like "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" is not indicative of charity at all. Instead, it becomes apparent to others that such a protesting method is more indicative of the fact that the protester is out to prove oneself as opposed to prove one's opinion on the matter. No sensible person thinks that "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" will convince the other side, neither will they see love in such a sign. Instead, they will see hate. They would not be wrong.
Another example is the Women's March. I am supportive of women's dignity. However, let me assure you that, allowing obscenities such as a parade of nude women and vagina costumes do more harm for the cause and will convince no one. In fact, such obscenities will draw people away from whatever Women's March stood for. No rational person will think that such obscenities will convince the other side. What a rational person will think is that those who acted with obscenity are out to prove themselves as opposed to prove their cause to others.
The challenge I make to you is thus: When you are expressing your opinions, are you fueled by your own vainglory or are you doing so for the sake of charity? And if you think that you are doing so for the sake of charity, ask another question: Are you fooling yourself that you are?
We see what has been mentioned too often, do we not? Perhaps you are guilty of it. Perhaps you're the one going around affirming people by "liking" others' statuses and comments based solely on your impulse as opposed to meditated thoughts. Perhaps you are guilty of hurling negative labels at others for supporting a politician or that politician's policies. Perhaps you justify doing all these things with a moral cause, that you are doing such things out of charity. If you are are guilty of the assumptions I've made, and if you have not caught on to my cynical tone yet, I am highly doubtful that you are actually driven by charity.
In a society requiring us to be politically engaged, the whole point of sharing our thoughts is to convince people. The primary motive for trying to convince others that a particular policy is better should be for the betterment of our society. In wishing the betterment of our society, we exercise charity. But I have found that some people are not sharing their thoughts to convince others. Rather, they do so to prove themselves.
It is a dogmatic psychological principle that human reactions often reveal wherein their affections lie. Where there is a calm and civil discourse, we know that there is charity and respect for others involved. For the love of others, they desire the best idea - the truth - to come out on top regardless of who is right. Where there is anger and obscenity, however, we know that the primary motive is not charity but rather pride. For the love of self, they desire their own idea to come out on top, regardless of the truth. The expressed charity would then be empty like a shell without its meat.
Allow me to use real life examples. I am against travel ban President Trump has, and is continuing to, support. But this will not blind me from realizing some sense in the other side's argument. It is statistically proven, from what has been gathered from Europe, that letting in refugees en masse from the seven war-torn areas is a big risk to take. Crime rate, especially rape, has skyrocketed in countries that allowed a mass of immigrants in from those countries. Further, the frequency of terror attacks have risen also. Considering all this, I do not think it's "Islamophobic," "bigoted," or "irrational" to support temporary travel ban. It's a legitimate moral dilemma: Should we take no risk for the love of our own or should we take the risk for the love of others?
In light of this, hurling negative labels and resorting to angry protesting with ludicrous signs like "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" is not indicative of charity at all. Instead, it becomes apparent to others that such a protesting method is more indicative of the fact that the protester is out to prove oneself as opposed to prove one's opinion on the matter. No sensible person thinks that "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" will convince the other side, neither will they see love in such a sign. Instead, they will see hate. They would not be wrong.
Another example is the Women's March. I am supportive of women's dignity. However, let me assure you that, allowing obscenities such as a parade of nude women and vagina costumes do more harm for the cause and will convince no one. In fact, such obscenities will draw people away from whatever Women's March stood for. No rational person will think that such obscenities will convince the other side. What a rational person will think is that those who acted with obscenity are out to prove themselves as opposed to prove their cause to others.
The challenge I make to you is thus: When you are expressing your opinions, are you fueled by your own vainglory or are you doing so for the sake of charity? And if you think that you are doing so for the sake of charity, ask another question: Are you fooling yourself that you are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)