Dialogue versus Dialectic

The basic instinct and behavior of analytic philosophers is to jump on the first expression of a thought by someone and start to clean it up … like a swarm of dung beetles attacking a newly deposited wad of scat.

I now think this is a mistake. For one thing, in practical and social terms, it can immediately shut down meaningful dialogue between two interlocutors. Granted, for two analytic philosophers, it is a joyful activity, and may even be productive. But I submit, as an empirical hypothesis, that this approach to conversation serves with most people to shut them up or to wall them behind a wall of defensiveness, thereby aborting the development of a thought that could otherwise have been midwifed.

But even more essentially – and this is my new thought now, which an analytic philosopher would be salivating to dissect and dismantle with counterexamples – I now view the activity as resting on a mistaken worldview. By “world” here I mean the world of our experience, the world as we know it or assume it to be. The mistaken worldview I have in mind is that our concepts are a reliable guide to reality – at least once our intuitions have gone through a process of critical analysis and dialogue (dialectic) and theory building (reflective equilibrium).

The “correct” worldview, I think (and no doubt due to my exposure to it at an impressionable age), is closer to the Hindu one, which is that reality is One, and all duality is illusion (or delusion if believed). “Duality” here means any distinguishing between individuals.

(Thus, in our hopeless epistemic condition, even talking about the One is a dualistic exercise, since doing so presumes that the One can be distinguished from illusion. This is why the best approach to “ultimate” reality may be not to say anything at all … or, like Zen Buddhists, to speak only in paradoxes.)

The practical upshot for me has been to adopt a more welcoming and less critical attitude toward the expression of ideas (by myself and others) … to become more, if not exclusively, a listener (as feminism often advises), and if speaking, to be at least equally as encouraging as critical, in an effort to discern the kernel of “truth” in every assertion rather than be sidelined by its (necessarily) hopelessly muddled shell.

Popular posts from this blog

How a Philosopher’s Mind Works, or, The Usefulness of Philosophy

For a long time I have conceived philosophy as the examination of assumptions that most people never question or are even aware of, especially the fundamental ones, such as that we have a mind or soul separate from our body or that we have free will or even that we exist at all. What philosophers then do is consider the reasons to believe or deny the assumption, and also whether the assumption might be reinterpreted. It is my considered view after a career in philosophy that none of these issues is ever decided once for all. Nevertheless I find value in the enterprise from the very turning of assumptions into questions, that is, issues about which people may reasonably disagree. This has the benign effect of supporting a greater mutual tolerance and respect among people who disagree even fundamentally.             A further benefit of – and way to characterize – philosophy is that it generates hypotheses. For by turning an assumpt...
Read more

An Argument for Materialism

A philosopher (like a scientist) can never prove anything but only at best provide evidence or reasons for (or against) believing something. Nevertheless a philosopher, like anyone, can still believe things, and we philosophers in particular fancy that our beliefs are at least rational if not proven. To me this means simply that whatever we believe, we do so in light of careful reflection on the evidence and arguments adduced pro and con.  That is all preamble to my stating that I am a materialist, that   is, I believe that human beings are wholly physical animals; and so even our consciousness, which seems “nonphysical” and for which, frankly, there is still no adequate explanation, is either nothing but the firing of synapses in the brain or does not even exist in its own terms but is illusory. [1]   But how could I possibly believe such a thing, when the counterevidence seems to stare us in the face (almost literally)? Indeed, I know the pull of this (what I n...
Read more

Will o' the Wisp: Why We Are Not Free

from Chapter 8 of  Maya  (2015) by Joel Marks  Freedom can be a strong feeling that makes us believe we really are free. Here I will give my reasons for denying that we are. How or why deny that there is free will? There are several avenues to this conclusion. One of them is simply to lose the feeling. This happened to me one day when I came downstairs to begin making my breakfast in the kitchen. [1]  As I went from station to station of my morning regime, I suddenly noticed that every action I took was ether strictly habitual or else the immediate effect of a prior cause. Thus, the whole routine was set in motion by my habitual descent from the bedroom to begin making breakfast. Once in the kitchen I (out of habit) walked to the refrigerator to obtain the orange juice container. But finding the container almost empty (cause) I reached behind a shelf for an unopened carton (effect). Then I brought the two cartons to the counter and, wanting to pour and drink the juic...
Read more