Opinion: Beyond Winning – Reframing the Purpose of our Public and Private Discussion 

1 1

Much has been made this past week, and throughout this year, out of the style of discussion and the rhetoric surrounding the American presidential election. The tone, and moreover the approach from both sides, has been both disrespectful and with an attitude of superiority. This is a problem that pervades almost every element of our society. 

It stems from the approach we take towards debate, one where the sole aim is convincing the “opponent” of our opinion. In any situation where we have two “sides” applying this process, there is an unavoidable impasse. Neither is willing to consider the argument of the other, at least not sufficiently to be persuaded of it, and so we go back and forth, no progress being made, and if anything, positions becoming more entrenched. The problem, fundamentally, is the assumption that one is right.

If this is what is to be avoided then where should our aspirations lie? Before this can be considered, we must first recognise that our own outlook is only one star in a muddled swirling galaxy of myriad human perspectives. Within this multitude, the possibility that we hold a truly “perfect” view of any topic is so minute that it fails to hold up to serious contemplation. This is not to say that our particular view (or any other for that matter) is so far from the ideal as to be out of sight, but more that there is always a more detailed picture available.  

To return to our query, we should aim to develop our own understanding from that of our interlocutor. Say we were to hold the ultimately correct perspective on an issue (not that this necessarily exists), even then there would be something to gain. Since their views are rooted in logic (even if this were the absolutely “wrong” logic), understanding the reasoning that leads them there enables us to more effectively unravel that logic in order to see from where these perspectives arise and potentially lay out any fallacies for examination. 

So, at the outset we must assume that there is sound logic behind the perspective of our interlocutor (and it is almost always so), if we descend the chain of their logical argument, not with the purpose of poking holes or scoring easy points, but with the noble aim of fundamentally understanding why their perspective is justified sufficiently to be maintained, we can eventually arrive at the point of divergence. The underlying point of disagreement is the only one worth discussing. Everyone’s reasoning is based somewhere, be it a different understanding of a topic, the world, or something more profound. It is at this point at which the true discussion can begin. This is not to say that we will all live in harmony and peace in a world of total agreement but rather to say that there is a more compassionate exchange of ideas, especially between those who have fervent disagreements.  

Within politics it is common for us to see radical oversimplifications not only of the topics under discussion but also of the discourse itself. This conversely creates a debate that appears much more complex than it is in reality. If we apply our process, we consolidate the fractured discussion into one that is much easier to follow and to engage with. This can only be beneficial. Even if we were to look at it from a purely self-interested standpoint, a deeper understanding of the rival perspective is beneficial to our efforts to convince others of our view. Taking a more holistic approach then this approach fosters respect. It is much more difficult to rudely dismiss someone out of hand whilst considering the logic that has led them to their position. Furthermore, it obliges (when it does not arise naturally out of a reciprocation of this process) a consideration of our own logic and most importantly our foundational principles. 

There is a joke that runs along these lines, that if someone says 1 + 1 = 10, then they may just be right. 

Image: Chairs, Chair circle, wollyvonwolleroy from Pixabay, 2012// CC0

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

1 100 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %