This is a response to an article published on the 13/6/13 titled 'Is Lloyd Duddridge arguing the
inarguable?'
Mr Poole forever in the kitchen
How
can one argue against arguing? Is that not a paradox? What I will aim to do
within this article is this. To show that argument in and of itself is vacuous.
That one does not have to step into the ‘trap’ that Mr Poole has outlined. That
one can examine the role of argument. If we examine it we see that argument is a
tool and not an end in itself. Mr Poole’s evocation of argument for argument
sake fails in the light of enquiry. In fact the real paradox is this, that
arguing for argument sakes actually works against arguments primary function.
Mr
Poole in his article showed us five definitions of argument. I will refresh the
reader’s minds of just what these were:
1. An oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation:
2. A discussion
involving differing points of view; debate
3. A process of reasoning; series of reasons:
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
Now
none of these five definitions indicate why we argue in the first place. Do we
just argue for the sake of it? If we do does that not make argument pointless?
Also does this understanding of argument not seem to suggest that it comes full
formed from nowhere? Mr Poole seems to conceive of argument as an end in
itself. Yet this can simply not be the case. Argument rests on responding to real problems. That without
problems in experience there would be no need for argumentation. Thus in a
perfect world where we are fully enlightened we would have no need for
argument. Argument comes about when we meet a problem and seek to overcome it.
Mr Poole puts the cart before the horse. I conceive debate and argument as a
necessary tool to overcome problems. However I do not celebrate argument for
argument sake. For argument to have meaning it must encounter problems. Thus Mr
Poole must thus be a defender of human suffering and the problems we encounter
in our lifetime. Now it has been argued by many thinkers that we in life need
problems to overcome. However to overcome a problem requires an end or a stop,
Mr Poole suggests no such end point. Thus in arguing for argument for arguments
sake, he is arguing against the goal of argument in the first place. Mr Poole’s
understanding of argument strikes me as the idea that it is the ingredients
that matter and not the meal. In fact we can go further than that, Mr Poole
conceives as argument as constantly cooking without ever eating the meal. Now
you can cook all you want, however without eating you will die.
Mr
Poole then goes onto outline a number of logical fallacies. Fine. I have no
problem that there are better and worse ways in order to argue. Just as there
are better and worse ways to cook. Mr Poole has seemed to misunderstand the
distinction between celebrating argument for arguments sake, and understanding
its role or function. I understand the role and function of argument. However I
see argument as it should be seen, not as an end in itself but as a tool. I
choose to understand the spade, but to
prioritise the
end result, the garden.
In
fact Mr Poole’s choice of topic proves my point. He was seeking to argue for
the sake of it. He saw no end after this debate took place. His understanding
and appreciation for argument for arguments sake is no closer than a man who is
writing for writing sake. Both could show a love for language and for writing.
However what is the point in it? Argument is powerful and necessary because it
has a greater and more powerful purpose behind it. The easing of human
suffering is something that should always be celebrated. To achieve this goal,
argument is needed as a tool. Mr Poole may say that I am creating a straw man,
and of course he was not talking of argument for argument sake. However I ask
the readership to read through his article and tell me if at any point he
speaks of the purpose behind argument that makes it meaningful? The only point he comes close is when
he links argument to persuasion. However he never says what ends we are
persuading people towards and thus we
meet with the
same problem I have outlined before.
Mr
Poole’s ideal of eternal argument thus fails. Argument for its own sake has no
more meaning than a book without words. Mr Poole seemingly accepted this
challenge in order to attempt to make me look foolish. However I will leave the
readership with this. Who is more foolish,the man who walks and never stops, or
the man that walks but stops at a place that he finds beautiful? Keep on
walking Mr Poole, keep on walking.
By
Lloyd Duddridge
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39
