An Argument Pro Argument and against No
Argument
I received an email
making a case against arguments. In fact
it was captioned An Argument against
Arguments. To use argument to counter argument seems more of a sophistry in
words than in substance. A world without
arguments is as utopian as a world without walls. In fact argument is central
to all discussions where reasons are advanced for and against a proposal or a
proposition. The article referred to above looks at arguments solely as
polemical and contentious, aimed at disputing any postulation or concept that
is made. It attributes the genesis of all arguments to human pride,
self-righteousness, greediness, selfishness- in short, to gain one-upmanship in
any competing discussion. This definition looks at argument as triggering a
firestorm and not as a line of reasoning for any discussion. The Indian
tradition of public debate and intellectual pluralism as demonstrated by
Amartya Sen in his book The Argumentative
Indian underlines the importance of public debate that has been the
strength of India from the time of Buddha and Ashoka. “The understanding and
use of this argumentative tradition are critically important”, Sen argues, “for
the success of India's democracy, the defence of its secular politics, the
removal of inequalities related to class, caste, gender and community, and the
pursuit of sub-continental peace.”
The article begins with
a quotation from the Proverbs: “A soft answer turns away wrath” to suggest that
all arguments are heated altercations and soft answers are no arguments. On the
basis of such an assumption that arguments are quarrelsome in nature, the
article says that arguments result in wars and destruction of homes. This is a
specious argument because the two world wars of the last century as also the wars
of terrorism of the present century can be traced to the aggressive will and
power of isolated individuals who brook no argument against their personal
hatred of people belonging to a religion or race or group other than their own.
Hitler swelling with pride as belonging to the Aryan master race had a morbid
obsession against the Jews, the physically challenged, the Blacks etc whom he
regarded as degenerate. His violent hatred of the Jews resulted in the
extermination of six million Jews and the onset of World War II. His slogan must
have been “No arguments please, We are
the Aryans”. Earlier the World War I drew in all the world's
economic great powers-
the Allies (based on the Triple
Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian
Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany
and Austria-Hungary. Later Italy
which had earlier been a member of the Central
Powers alongside Germany and
Austria-Hungary, joined the Allies with , Japan
and the United States. Ultimately, the underlying causes
were political, territorial and economic conflicts among the great European powers
besides militarism, nationalism and imperialism. More than 9 million combatants
and 7 million civilians died as a result of this deadly war. Similarly
breakdown of marriages and families have many causes other than just arguments
between husband and wife. The subtle form of violence is present whenever “resources
and power are unequally distributed, concentrated in the hands of the few, who
do not use them to achieve the possible realization of all embers, but use
parts of them for self satisfaction or for purposes of dominance, oppression
and control of other societies or of the underprivileged in the same society.”(World
Council of Churches: Violence, Non-Violence
and the Struggle for Social Justice)
Yet another argument
made against argument is that there is absolutely no gain from argument but
only loss of time, energy and friendship. This conclusion is premised on the
notion that no free exchange of opinion is possible between two persons without
causing friction between them. Even parliamentary debates are for exchange of
ideas and views and even when the decibel levels go high, they help the members
to have a re-look at the proposal and
make the necessary changes for broad acceptance. The top Parliamentarians known
for their heated exchanges within the Parliament are often seen as good friends
once they are out of the hall. To argue against argument is to accept the
famous dictum ‘my way or the highway’-to assert that there shall be no
alternative to any given view .
At the end the argument
in favour of No argument turns itself on its head when it says “No one ever
wins an argument.” Yes this is precisely the reason to say yes to arguments because
arguments lead to bridging consensus between different views and opinions.
Everyone has his share of acceptance and rejection of his ideas. The more we
argue, the closer we come to know and accept the other person and his different
point of view.
To argue is genetic to
all human beings. It is a fundamental human right as it endorses freedom to think
and arrive at one’s views and ideas, freedom to express them and freedom to
mould them and reshape them within a broad canvas. Joseph Joubert the 19th
C French essayist in his Pense’es wrote: "The aim of argument, or of
discussion, should not be victory, but progress".
Well, here is an
argument I have against No argument and I hope this Argument for Argument and
against No Argument will be a genuine and not a pyrrhic victory for the
advancement of ideas.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment