In reading
David Kaufer’s A Plan for Teaching the
Development of Original Policy Arguments and Rebecca Jones’ Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with
Logic? I believe that together the two make for an interesting dialogue. In
Jones’ piece I was really interested in Quintilian’s idea that a good citizen
is always a public participant when put in perspective with today’s society. It
seems that “good citizens” nowadays are those that stay hidden/anonymous and
out of any argument with others. We are taught not to fight at all, ever. Yet,
it seems, after reading these pieces, that argument has a definite place within our society. The question is where is
that exactly?
According
to Kaufer, the skills of developing a solid argument, and subsequent solutions
to disagreements, should happen early on through the training and teaching of
these skills. Some of it, however, I find should come naturally to students. It
is crossing this boundary of when it
is socially acceptable to argue that is the true point to be taught. In my
mind, it seems that we possess all of the necessary qualities to put forth a
solid argument. Yet, we are rendered incapable of showcasing such until we are
given the “go ahead,” like in the school program setting that Kaufer outlines
in his work.
In reading further and also delving
deeper into this idea of the social conceptions that go along with “argument,”
I found Jones’ pinpointing our culture’s usage of a binary opposition when it
comes to arguing enlightening. There is a
black and a white, a right and a wrong, my opinion and his. Jones writes:
While many pro and
con arguments are valid, they can erase nuance, negate the local and
particular, and shut down the very purpose of having an argument: the
possibility that you might change your mind, learn some- thing new, or solve a
problem. (160)
She continues on to say, “Rather than an either/or proposition, argument
is multiple and complex. An argument can be logical, rational, emotional,
fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable” (160). I completely agree with Jones in
that she sees argument as a complex concept and positive necessity to any
functioning society, especially a democracy. Tying in with this concept of
active argument is understanding human nature thoroughly enough to be effective
at it. Kaufer’s identification of what, exactly, causes conflict is quite
specific in clarifying where misconceptions occur:
Does the Opponent –
1) misunderstand the sense or reference of certain statements?
2) Misunderstand the
frame of reference of certain statements?
3)
Possess conflicting evidence?
4)
Hold conflicting
local views?
5)
Hold conflicting
global views? (58)
I found it very helpful to
note Kaufer’s 5 key points for in order to make a truly original
contribution/move toward fully resolving a problem, one needs a truly complete
understanding of all angles of the disagreement at hand.
This complete understanding is something that Aristotle felt somewhat differently about when he argued that "things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites." Yet, I do not
believe that this rings true in our modern world. Upon encountering this quote,
I was immediately reminded of our justice system and the way that lawyers argue
over guilt and innocence more by performance rather than by usage of the truth.
The truth, alone, as Aristotle describes it is, in fact, not enough in legal situations for it to prevail. As Jones writes
on this, “Sometimes we miss the faults of an argument because it sounds good or
appears to have clear connections between the statement and the evidence, when
in truth the only thing holding the argument together is a lovely sentence or
an artistic flourish.” (169)
This concept of truth
as it relates to human nature is something that makes “argument” a very
subjective concept. It seems to me that Inductive Reasoning plays a large role
in modern argument. Human nature is to take the specific journey of life we, as
individuals, have traveled as the “true vantage point” and have that skew our
view of the world a specific way . . . Everyone else’s perspectives fall short
to our own in a way, because we can not experience and understand them as we do
our own. We argue for something based on what we know and have experienced.
Personally, after
reading these pieces, I have discovered that I relate the closest to the ideas
of ethos, pathos, and logos. I find
truly affective argument to be those which apply to different aspects of the
human mind and heart in order to establish a lasting connection that holds the
capability of swaying opinion. This
specific view point on the inner workings of argument reminds me strongly of
what I do with film acting and singing. It is persuasion through emotion and logic applying to different levels
of the complex human experience that I connect to most.
That being said, I do
ultimately agree with Philosopher Steven Toulimin that arguments are much more
complex than the syllogisms and such that Aristotle was so fond of. It takes a simultaneous and complete
understanding of not only one’s own standing but of that of the “opponent” in
the argument. It is only through a thorough analysis of every circumstance at
play that there is any hope of resolving an issue through argumentative
discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment