Is Lloyd Duddridge arguing the
inarguable?
The
infamous Mr. Duddridge made a bold claim on Youtube.
I’m quite sure you’ve seen it. One would assume that you also saw my reply? If not, I will
educate you: Mr.Duddridge, wrapped in a metaphorical cloak of hubris, said he
would out argue anyone philosophically – on any topic.
Naturally,
I thought of making Lloyd argue the inarguable, not to mention the absurd. I
requested him to argue why he shouldn’t argue. This is, quite obviously, a
trap. It is a finely spun web, a liar paradox, to be exact. A liar paradox can
be defined as, “a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.” How
Lloyd can manage to justify through argument that we shouldn’t argue is
impossible. I wait with glee to see his reply. He is famed for breaking the
mould, after all.
However,
what does the word “argue” mean? It seems, at least to me, philosophy is
confined by language. Words are tricky, like Wittgenstein’s ladder, which you
must throw away after ascending. They never seem to be what they are, because,
quite often, they are not. Context
is what it comes down to. Context is vital.
So,
if we have an argument with someone, we usually think of an emotional
dysfunction within a social context, be it between two friends, or family
members – or even a philosophical group. However, this is only one layer of the
onion-like word that is “argument”.
According to the authority that is www.dictionary.com, there are five
main different ways of using the word “argument”:-
1. An oral
disagreement; verbal opposition; contention;
2. A discussion
involving differing points of view; debate:
3. A process of reasoning;
series of reasons:
4. A statement,
reason, or fact for or against a point:
5. An address or
composition intended to convince or persuade;
I
hope, Lloyd, that you’ve seen that persuading is arguing, at least in a sense.
Nevertheless, the almost infinite onion layers that comprise the word
“argument” continue. There are delicious spirals, an eternity of grey, when it
comes to this special, philosophical word. This is due to the fact that not all arguments are equally
valid. If they were all equally valid, all humans would have to be equally
intelligent, and educated to the same standard. It’s an interesting concept to
think about.
I’m
sure we’ve all seen an experienced rhetorician wipe the floor with, and please
forgive the colloquial language, a noob? But, we have to ask ourselves, is it
all smoke and mirrors? Just because someone is convincing to the public, it
doesn’t make their argument valid, or sound. Of course, there are many, many
argumentative fallacies one can commit. As we all know, nothing makes one more
of a smug, self-satisfied smart ass than pointing out when someone else has
employed such a fallacy. To metaphorically grate their ego, as if it was
comprised of idiotic cheese, in front a group of your intellectual peers is so
satisfying.
I
don’t have enough scope within this humble article to delve fully into the
many, many fallacies that exist, or even the many types of argument there are.
So, I will just list my favourite argumentative fallacies, which you can point
out in a group of your peers, and thereby enhance you sense of smugness:
1.
The ad hominem. My favourite way of defining
this is as the great ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway termed it, when he was attacked
by Andrew O’Neill on The Politics
show. He called it, “Playing the man, and not the ball.” And he was right, too.
When someone uses an ad hominem, they
attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
2.
Ignoratio elenchi – I discovered this due to none other
than the sexiest albino in politics (please note the ironic ad hominem), Boris Johnson. It literally means that you’re missing
the main point of the debate in question.
3.
The
infamous straw man. This is when someone’s argument is
misrepresented by someone else. I think that sometimes, however, the person
accused of making a straw man is merely trying to clarify the other’s position;
nevertheless, quite often the person making the straw man is mocking.
4.
Last,
but by no means least, is Godwin’s Law.
A slightly different, but more Harry
Potter friendly, version of this fallacy is called reducto ad Hitlerum. Many people compare that which they do not
like to Hitler or the Nazis – the comparisons are dull, due to their lack of
originality, and by continually comparing ‘x’
to Hitler’s atrocities, we are
devaluing the seriousness of what actually happened . Furthermore, one may say
that due to the fact Hitler liked animals, that animals are ‘bad’. This is, quite clearly, a fallacious
argument.
It may have surprised you all that rather
than argue why it is right to argue, that I have opted to analyse what arguing
perhaps is. We do know that it can take many forms, that’s for sure. However,
Lloyd’s position is impossible, and that’s why I feel confident enough not to
provide many arguments against his position. How can you argue that we
shouldn’t argue? It is impossible to avoid a liar paradox. That, I am afraid, is all there is to
the matter.
By Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39
