The death of discussion
When I went to school I was taught that a discussion would be a vehicle for weighing arguments. I wasn't particularly convinced by that vehicle though. I always thought that in order to make any decision you needed to task a staff with making the necessary inquiries and then explaining the requirements to you.
When we play-acted our little exercises in democracy I would judge the different teams on the merits of whether they would give truthful and complete accounts, but only one side ever had the chance to, because only one side was assigned the task to argue for the correct course of action.
When the teacher would assign me to argue for something stupid I would openly say that I had better things to do.
Of course, with that attitude I never got any good grades in German, where we practiced this. But I didn't care. As long as my grades wouldn't be so bad as to keep me in school an extra year, why bother? After all, teachers are ridiculous people and for what amount of money would anyone want to be a ridiculous person's pet?
Widening the perspective a bit, the first discussions on German television I saw were all like Luis Trenker's discussion with the poor woman on the NDR Talk Show from April 2nd, 1982. That is to say, one party would demonstrate that she learned how to discuss in school, the moderator that is, and the other party would sabotage that effort by simply telling the truth: I heard that you had difficult relations with the Nazis. Would you consider yourself a resistance fighter? - Well, Hitler saw me dancing with Eva Braun and after that he didn't want me around anymore. [...] But it was an oppressive atmosphere back then? - I really love the mountains. And the people who live in the mountains. The farmers of South Tyrol, they are such generous people!
If you think about it, it really isn't that difficult: Just allow yourself to answer with the closest approximate memory you have to the question.
But I don't want to teach subversive tactics here, I just mentioned this, because, how could I not? No, my point here is that in 1982 moderators in Germany were raw amateurs. Discussions were perceived as a society game, not a political instrument.
Some time between then and now I also seem to remember that discussions were able to sway people in a heated exchange, that is, when Gerhard Schröder said that he didn't want to have anything to do with the Second Iraq War, in the ensuing discussion over whether the United States would nuke Germany in retaliation the optimists carried the day.
So, that's about it, my whole knowledge of discussions. But even so I've noticed a change. These days the idea seems to be that a discussion is a hammer swinging contest in which that side wins that gets the most members to join in in the shortest time.
Many people express sadness over this, but I can't say that I'm sad. If anything, I'm feeling the slightest bit of Schadenfreude, because now making arguments is back in the hands of those who can write. When has rational decision making ever needed sophistry? The sophist needs the discussion, because nobody reads his distortions voluntarily. Sure, if compiled like in Euthydemus they can be fun, but that's really all they are good for.
More worrisome is that along with discussions dialogue is dying as well. Dialogue is necessary. Perspectives need to be exchanged in the cause of establishing reality. And dialectic in the platonic sense, while rather being resurrected from the dead than dying, has become the study of potheads - or those who masquerade as such. So, communication really is at an ebb tide currently. But dialogue cannot but reaffirm its vitality and while the current resurrection of platonic dialectic is silly, paying attention to its principles can only benefit us later. So I am overall optimistic: Our intellectual climate will improve middle term in long not seen ways.
When we play-acted our little exercises in democracy I would judge the different teams on the merits of whether they would give truthful and complete accounts, but only one side ever had the chance to, because only one side was assigned the task to argue for the correct course of action.
When the teacher would assign me to argue for something stupid I would openly say that I had better things to do.
Of course, with that attitude I never got any good grades in German, where we practiced this. But I didn't care. As long as my grades wouldn't be so bad as to keep me in school an extra year, why bother? After all, teachers are ridiculous people and for what amount of money would anyone want to be a ridiculous person's pet?
Widening the perspective a bit, the first discussions on German television I saw were all like Luis Trenker's discussion with the poor woman on the NDR Talk Show from April 2nd, 1982. That is to say, one party would demonstrate that she learned how to discuss in school, the moderator that is, and the other party would sabotage that effort by simply telling the truth: I heard that you had difficult relations with the Nazis. Would you consider yourself a resistance fighter? - Well, Hitler saw me dancing with Eva Braun and after that he didn't want me around anymore. [...] But it was an oppressive atmosphere back then? - I really love the mountains. And the people who live in the mountains. The farmers of South Tyrol, they are such generous people!
If you think about it, it really isn't that difficult: Just allow yourself to answer with the closest approximate memory you have to the question.
But I don't want to teach subversive tactics here, I just mentioned this, because, how could I not? No, my point here is that in 1982 moderators in Germany were raw amateurs. Discussions were perceived as a society game, not a political instrument.
Some time between then and now I also seem to remember that discussions were able to sway people in a heated exchange, that is, when Gerhard Schröder said that he didn't want to have anything to do with the Second Iraq War, in the ensuing discussion over whether the United States would nuke Germany in retaliation the optimists carried the day.
So, that's about it, my whole knowledge of discussions. But even so I've noticed a change. These days the idea seems to be that a discussion is a hammer swinging contest in which that side wins that gets the most members to join in in the shortest time.
Many people express sadness over this, but I can't say that I'm sad. If anything, I'm feeling the slightest bit of Schadenfreude, because now making arguments is back in the hands of those who can write. When has rational decision making ever needed sophistry? The sophist needs the discussion, because nobody reads his distortions voluntarily. Sure, if compiled like in Euthydemus they can be fun, but that's really all they are good for.
More worrisome is that along with discussions dialogue is dying as well. Dialogue is necessary. Perspectives need to be exchanged in the cause of establishing reality. And dialectic in the platonic sense, while rather being resurrected from the dead than dying, has become the study of potheads - or those who masquerade as such. So, communication really is at an ebb tide currently. But dialogue cannot but reaffirm its vitality and while the current resurrection of platonic dialectic is silly, paying attention to its principles can only benefit us later. So I am overall optimistic: Our intellectual climate will improve middle term in long not seen ways.
Labels: 28, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
01:05
