Why Arguments Are Pointless
confirmation bias makes us follow and favor information that confirms our prior beliefs. In a conversation, it would make us interpret the speaker’s words in a way that confirms our suppositions about that person’s words. It’s not wrong.
Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi has a different explanation. He thinks that the mode of our communication: language, inherently possesses limitations. We can only go so far in relaying our thoughts and ideas, and to go any further would be fruitless.
But everyone should know that consensus doesn’t necessarily imply truth. In the Theaetetus, Socrates argues that anyone with great powers of persuasions can rally a group of supporters for your claims — even when they are not true.
One could be convinced of the truth without going through the process of knowing the truth.
But Zhuangzi takes it a step further. He argues that no one can really possess the “truth” through rhetoric. No one can really be convinced of the truth.
Zhuangzi thinks that by being convinced of the truth, we only actually possess a version or an interpretation of that truth.
Zhuangzi believes that our unawareness of indexical relativism makes much of our discourse fruitless. This is so because we’re often unaware that people say things with a particular purpose and perspective. We’re usually unaware of those purposes and perspectives, and yet we engage in a debate.
Zhuangzi doesn’t ask us to abandon discourse altogether. Instead, he advises us to seek mutual understanding (to the best we can) and not be adamant about proving a point.
Zhuangzi reminds us that words and language are instrumental. They are a tool to convey meaning. And oftentimes, we engage in discourse, forgetting about this. We speak as if speaking is an end in itself.
#争执 #哲学 #庄子
confirmation bias makes us follow and favor information that confirms our prior beliefs. In a conversation, it would make us interpret the speaker’s words in a way that confirms our suppositions about that person’s words. It’s not wrong.
Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi has a different explanation. He thinks that the mode of our communication: language, inherently possesses limitations. We can only go so far in relaying our thoughts and ideas, and to go any further would be fruitless.
But everyone should know that consensus doesn’t necessarily imply truth. In the Theaetetus, Socrates argues that anyone with great powers of persuasions can rally a group of supporters for your claims — even when they are not true.
One could be convinced of the truth without going through the process of knowing the truth.
But Zhuangzi takes it a step further. He argues that no one can really possess the “truth” through rhetoric. No one can really be convinced of the truth.
Zhuangzi thinks that by being convinced of the truth, we only actually possess a version or an interpretation of that truth.
Zhuangzi believes that our unawareness of indexical relativism makes much of our discourse fruitless. This is so because we’re often unaware that people say things with a particular purpose and perspective. We’re usually unaware of those purposes and perspectives, and yet we engage in a debate.
Zhuangzi doesn’t ask us to abandon discourse altogether. Instead, he advises us to seek mutual understanding (to the best we can) and not be adamant about proving a point.
Zhuangzi reminds us that words and language are instrumental. They are a tool to convey meaning. And oftentimes, we engage in discourse, forgetting about this. We speak as if speaking is an end in itself.
#争执 #哲学 #庄子