And men have lost their reason.
- Julius Caesar, A3S2
It never ceases to amaze me how little people care of human nature when speaking out for or against political issues. I think that the current political culture is not conducive to objective and tempered dialogue, so I aim to share my humble opinion on how to better navigate human nature in politics so as to cultivate a political culture that is conducive to objective and tempered dialogue.
Proving Oneself Right vs. Proving Idea Right
There is a distinct difference in conduct between those trying to prove themselves and those trying to prove their idea right out of genuine care for the common good. The former does not care for human nature, and the latter cares for human nature. The former will be abrasive and prideful, the latter will avoid emotion-charged discussions whenever possible. This is so for those who seek to prove their idea right for the common good seeks first and foremost to prove his idea right. It is therefore commonsensical to avoid situations where people can be overcome with passion and have their reason blinded. It is of paramount priority for individuals to abandon their childish desire to prove themselves right.
Prioritizing Condemnation
When people are consumed with passion and have their reason blinded, they tend to pick a political side as opposed to the side of absolute morality. When there are faults on all sides, the outraged people will not condemn the sides they find to be less morally culpable. Instead, they will condemn only the side that seems to be the greater threat and treat the less culpable as allies. Knowing this fact, one must be careful to call out moral wrongs on multiple sides to prevent oneself from being demonized by the passionate public. Save criticisms of those less morally culpable for later when things are hopefully settled. Instead, speak against those most morally culpable first. It may be frustrating that condemning all acts of immorality can at times be seen as unreasonable. But such are the ways of the people overcome by passion.
Intellectual Charity
You are not the master of another's mind. It is a simple statement, is it not? But many seem to forget. It is a daily occurrence for arrogant men and women in news networks to put words and ideas into another's mouths and mind. Always interpret another's statements in light most favorable to the speaker, not yourself. It is the speaker who is the owner of said statements, not you nor anyone else. It goes without saying that the corollary of intellectual charity is withholding oneself from calling those whom you disagree with "racist," "sexist," or "homophobe." Being quick to paint another as evil is an act of intellectual imbecility wrought on by childish desire to prove oneself right.
Rhetorical Strategy
This is a point that gathers three previous points together. All around me I see poor rhetorical strategies by various groups. Speech is the primary mode of communication, and one wrong move can agitate a crowd, even if the statement is wholly true. Sometimes, truths must be withheld for a while to lessen the effects of passion upon the masses. Sometimes, a noble lie ought to be used in order to be on the good side of those blinded by passion. The end goal of dialogue is to convince. If the other side becomes impermeable to reason through passion, it becomes harder to convince. With that in mind, rhetorical strategies should carefully be planned through prudence.
There are countless smaller points I would like to address, but I reserve them from being stated here in concern for length.
No comments:
Post a Comment