The details of the protest are uninteresting: it was the usual in-your-face transgressiveness and refusal to give opponents a fair hearing.
It's that refusal that is interesting.
One of the commenters on Bonald's post takes the position that
“Good and evil” and “absolute truth” are child’s fictions. I only believe in good (stuff I like) and bad (stuff I don’t like). All that matters is that one possesses enough force to make what one believes is good prevail. Everything else is window dressing and obfuscation.
To which someone else replied that this position is self-refuting.
I don't think that reply is as effective as it might seem at first glance.
Here is my comment on that thread:
Perhaps we misunderstand the “sons of Thrasymachus” when we take them to be making a truth-claim when they say there is no truth?
Perhaps it is merely an assertion of their own will? Not an argument, but an argument-ending, table-banging snarl?
“All that matters is that one possesses enough force to make what one believes is good prevail.” Someone who says things like that should not be mistaken for one who could be persuaded by arguments.
The situation istheremarkably similar in the case of the students protesting at Prof. Esolen’s lecture. They’ve hardened their hearts and plugged up their ears. They’re not open to persuasion. Argument is only interesting to them when it serves as a rationalization of what they have already willed to do.
The "sons of Thrasymachus" view argument as a contest of strength, like those medieval trials by combat I've mentioned before. The only point of the contest is to determine a winner -- which simply means the one who kills or beats his opponent into submission. Winners get their way, losers don't.
What's missing are the ideas that "I might be wrong" and "By reasoning and reflecting on this together, perhaps we can come closer to the truth."
Dialectic, as opposed to mere contest, presupposes that there is a truth to be found. The "sons of Thrasymachus" reject that presupposition and therefore it is inappropriate and usually futile to engage them in dialogue.
There is a certain kind of hard-hearted atheist with whom it is counter productive for Christians to argue. They imagine that Christians will never pass up an opportunity for evangelism, and delight in using such people as sitting ducks, people who will soak up abuse and whose time they enjoy wasting.
ReplyDeleteNot this Christian! I think it does more good, provides a perhaps educative jolt - to dismiss them and refuse to engage in argument as wasteful of finite effort that ought to be better expended.
I agree.
DeleteIt is often a mistake to assume that the other views the discussion as seriously as we do.
Sound rhetoric always requires first of all a correct understanding of our audience and of the rhetorical situation.
Do follow the link to Bonald's blog if you want more of the context behind this post. I don't necessarily agree with everything Bonald and the other commenters said, however.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll save you some trouble and quote some of my other remarks there, spelling out what I mean by "transgressive" behavior:
I agree that their transgressions are never punished, and that this is proof enough that the establishment is on their side.
The peculiar thing is, they still see themselves as transgressive, as rebels “sticking it to the man.”
I imagine the denizens of Sodom behaved in much the same way, even though they were running the town. Mocking, flaunting, sneering, scoffing, blaspheming,…
… jeering, taunting, slandering, cursing, bullying, catcalling, goading,…
Throughout history, sinners have always behaved the same way when called to repentance.