A Brother Asks: Why are there so many pointless arguments between Brothers?
Coach: Because the Brothers arguing have yet to circumscribe and subdue their passions and desires well enough to have discourse to seek the truth. As a result, they argue eristically* to win rather than having a dialectical, heuristic, or constructive argument intending to find or to uncover the truth.
Some Background: In philosophy and rhetoric, an eristic argument is one aims at defeating an opponent and "win" the debate rather than to discover the truth or reach a mutual understanding. It is derived from Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos and strife, the term describes a style of "wrangling" that prioritizes victory through cleverness, emotional manipulation, or specious reasoning.
Key Characteristics
Eristic arguments are often distinguished from dialectic or heuristic debates by several specific features:
- Goal-Oriented Toward Victory: The primary objective is to prove the other person wrong or to force them to assent to the negation of their own belief rather than reach a consensus or logical conclusion.
- Use of Fallacies: Eristic debaters frequently employ logical fallacies, such as the straw man fallacy (misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack) to confuse or trap their opponents.
- Ad Hominem Attacks: Instead of addressing the logic of an argument, eristic speakers often attack the character, motives of their opponent, and the opponent's personal weaknesses.
- Specious Reasoning: These arguments may use reasoning that appears plausible on the surface but is actually false or misleading.
- Red Herrings: Introducing irrelevant topics to distract from a point where the opponent may have a strong position.
- Emotional Manipulation: They often rely on fear, pity, or pride to sway an audience when logic fails.
- Refusal to Concede: Eristic participants are typically resistant to revising their views, even when faced with contradictory evidence.
Eristic Tactics
- Sophistry: Using clever but misleading arguments.
- Hidden Attacks: Agreeing to premises only to lead to a crushing, unpalatable conclusion at the end.
- Deflection & Bias: Avoiding substance by projecting biases or making vague counterclaims.
Historical & Philosophical Context
- Ancient Greece: The eristic method was popularized by certain Sophists who taught students how to refute any opponent, regardless of the truth. Plato famously satirized this practice in his dialogue Euthydemus, contrasting it with the truth-seeking Socratic method.
- Arthur Schopenhauer: In his work The Art of Being Right (also known as Eristic Dialectic), Schopenhauer outlined 38 stratagems for winning arguments regardless of objective truth. He argued that because humans are naturally "vain and talkative," they often care more about being right than being truthful.
Modern Applications
In contemporary literature and drama, eristic is used as a device to create tension or highlight a lack of resolution. For example, the dialogue in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is often eristic, as characters argue over trivialities without reaching any meaningful conclusion. In the real world, eristic styles are frequently observed in heated political debates where the goal is to score "points" with an audience rather than to solve policy problems.
The Cause
As stated before, the root of this problem and the troubles it causes is one or both Brothers not initially laying a foundation of virtue. This is the Apprentice Work that the first degree directs us to do before we begin the study of the Trivium. Without it, and the study of the Trivium as well, a Brother will still have enough chaos in his heart to cause pointless arguing.
A Final Note
Eristic arguments are not necessarily a bad thing. They are great training exercises to:
1. Develop critical thinking and argumentation skills
2. Test and challenge assumptions and beliefs
3. Improve one's ability to articulate and defend a position
4. Engage in intellectual sparring and mental exercise
Intent is everything!
------------
* "Eristically" is an adverb describing a
manner of arguing that is contentious, disputatious, and focused on
winning or creating strife, rather than discovering truth or resolving
issues, often using clever but fallacious reasoning, derived from
the Greek word for "strife". It's a way of engaging in debate for the
sake of conflict, employing persuasive but potentially deceptive
tactics, as opposed to genuine logical discussion.
Meaning and Usage
- Argument for Victory: Arguing to defeat an opponent, even if the argument is unsound or dishonest, notes Merriam-Webster dictionary.
- Contentious Style: Characterized by disputes, wrangling, and controversy, stemming from the Greek goddess Eris (strife).
- Examples:
A politician speaking eristically might use name-calling and irrelevant
points to win a point, or a writer might use eristic techniques to
create a captivating, thought-provoking debate in fiction.
Related Terms
- Eristic (adjective): Relating to this disputatious style (e.g., an eristic debate).
- Eristic (noun): A person who engages in such arguments or the art of such disputation.
