Readers of this blog are aware that I am presently reviewing
a set of disciplines essential to truth-seeking argumentation. Engaging in arguments, due to the exacting
nature of these disciplines and associated skills, is a form of seeking the truth. The disciplines, what Philip Selznick[1] calls
“the pillars of reason,” are order, principle, experience, prudence, and
dialogue. In my last posting, I
described the discipline of experience and that discipline revolved around staving
off the allure of emotions in arriving at legitimate conclusions. This can be difficult. But to further this demand or discipline by assigning
no role to emotions can be detrimental in seeking the truth as well. There is a legitimate role or function that
emotions play. Let me explain.
To begin with – as I have mentioned a time or two in this
blog – all desires or aims, such as truth-seeking, begin with an emotion. You have to desire the truth before you seek
it. And so one must nurture this emotion
because oftentimes the truth can be hurtful or fear provoking; we often tend to
shy away or avoid it. Therefore,
building the emotional commitment for the truth is something that takes, for
most of us, a conscious effort and diligence.
Once in place and part of one’s makeup, it is hard to see how one
abandons such a commitment because in the long run it will probably serve one
better than the alternative of deceiving oneself or others.
The second relevant factor in this concern is that, along
with all the experiences one must mull over in seeking the truth, the fact that
we and those around us experience emotions is something, in itself, with which
we must reckon. It is not only another
factor, but one that is central to our social world. Our ability to empathize with the feelings of
others – that is, our ability to see the factual reality of the role emotions
play in the lives of all us – is essential in understanding why the social
world is as it is.
And the third relevant factor is that not all argumentation
is geared toward seeking the truth; in fact, little of it is. Most argumentation is initiated for the purposes
of convincing others of points of view revolving around all sorts of
concerns. These concerns can be from
selling commercial items to soliciting some favor or benefit. The use of rhetoric comes into play; that is,
the art of the manipulation of language and at times illogical phraseology that
either hooks onto emotions or to some illogical train of argumentative points
that sound logical but are not. So, for
example, a person might say something against an argument by stating that some
historical villain believed in that argument; therefore, it must be wrong to
believe it. Even the worst villain or noted fool can be right some of the time. But if your goal is to convince someone of something,
then appealing to his/her emotions is something one might have to do but, if
done, it should be done in a moral way; it should not be done in a dishonest or
conniving way. To be dishonest in
argument can be as offensive as any slight that merits revengeful consequences
and can undermine the bonds that tie citizens together.
Emotions play a role in argumentation and one should be aware
of that role. What a teacher of civics
should do is train students to be able to detect their uses and even instruct
them as to how they can be used, not in truth-seeking – other than in denoting
their role in social behavior – but in the use of honest rhetoric for the
common good.
[1] Selznick, P.
(1992). The moral commonwealth: Social
theory and the promise of community.
Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment