"All that mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of books."
-Thomas Carlyle

by Paul Lytle

I was recently diagnosed with a minor case of Bell’s palsy, which sounds considerably worse than it was. The condition was, at worst, inconvenient, because half of my face, for a period of a couple of days, was mostly paralyzed.

While explaining the condition to me, my doctor said that I might have to tape my eye shut at night if it would not close on its own. Luckily, my case was not so severe to warrant such measures, but I considered the statement in more detail later, and I found it interesting that, apparently, it is the natural state of the human eye is to be open. When there is no effort exerted upon the organ, as when it is paralyzed, it remains open.

Can we say the same about our hearts and minds? Is the natural state of our sensibilities to remain open and aware? I cannot say for certain, but it seems to be quite the opposite from the evidence around us. Most people remain steadfast in their own positions without ever considering others. Those who claim to be open-minded are often the worst. They will say that someone else is not open-minded when that person does not agree with, as an example, gay marriage, but they themselves have never even considered the possibility that gay marriage might be, in fact, wrong or harmful.

Do not misunderstand here. I do not claim that we should doubt our beliefs on a daily basis, only that we should know the other side well enough to see the flaws in our opponents and ourselves. A Capitalist should have read enough of Marx to fully understand the weaknesses in both Communism and Capitalism. A Christian should hear the questions asked by unbelievers so that he may answer them.

This seems to me to be the first step in knowing that you are right on any given subject. After all, it is very difficult for anyone to say, to an absolute certainty, that our theories are really the best ways to solve the world’s problems. That exact point is brought up in many theoretical debates (mainly when one side has run out of defenses): “How can you be sure that you are right when the other side believes just as strongly that they are right?”

It is a valid question, even if it is not really a valid point in debate, unless the other side is using zeal alone as proof of his position. By the weight of convictions alone we cannot be sure. But we can, with an open mind, find clues to lead us in the right direction.

An Honest Opinion

The basic goal in this first exercise is to establish an opinion that is honest. We will not be able to say with absolute certainty that we are right, but we will have a position that is defensible, which is actually a rare thing in these days. From that point we will establish a position that is learned, which seems even more rare. But let us begin with honesty.

The only real way of determining that your opinion is honest is to ask of it honest questions. This is not as simple as it seems, since the whole point of this process is that it seems the natural inclination of man to be dishonest when it comes to his own opinions, so we cannot truly trust ourselves to be honest in the first place.

The easiest way to accomplish this is to examine our own style of debate. I cannot tell you how many times the arguments of this magazine have been dismissed as “old-fashioned.” Well, that is not really a valid counter to the point. It is a way to dismiss the theory, but it does not do so in any honest way. Simply because an idea is old does not make it untrue.

Most people do not even believe that something old is, by definition, worthless anyway, even if they make that argument. A friend of mine recently a debate with another man, who suggested that my friend’s ideas were old-fashioned. I later visited this man’s own website, and he was bragging that Eastern philosophers had been exploring a certain idea for thousands of years longer than Western ones. The past had great value to him, so long as the people of the past agreed with him.

We must judge an argument by its own worth, not its age or even source. If we find ourselves using arguments like, “That is old-fashioned,” in a debate, we must recognize that our arguments are not honest.

Likewise is unsupported name-calling not honest. If a man is calling for better enforcement of immigration, it is not intellectually honest to simply reply that he is racist. Now, if he is a racist, and provably so, then we could make that claim, but not simply because he is making a statement of law and theory.

Is being against gay marriage homophobic? Of course not. There are certainly homophobic people who are against gay marriage, but if a man makes a statement of the tradition of marriage, that is a sacred bond that would be tainted if the State were to twist its established definition, then it is not a Just reply that he is simply homophobic. If you disagree, you must refute the points he has made – that gay marriage does not harm the tradition of marriage.

This sort of name-calling has no place in an honest debate.

One sneaky method of name-calling, I have found, is to say that your opponent is speaking theoretically while your own arguments are based on the “real world.” This is, of course, a nonsensical attempt at seeming more intelligent than the other person, even when policy without theory is chaotic at best. Every man who has a position on a subject is basing that opinion on a theory. I may think that less government is better than more government. I may have studies and historical references to prove my point, but I begin with the theory that less government is better. Furthermore, all debate is theoretical, since you cannot actually conduct scientific experiments in a controlled environment on the spot to prove your point.

Like, “That is old-fashioned,” the argument that “I live in the real world” is a desperate statement, seeking to defend a position that is not honest.

In essence, an honest debate answers point with point. If your opponent presents evidence on one side, that evidence must be refuted with evidence. If you cannot, then it is critical that the point be conceded, else the debate degrades into useless bickering.

We must ask ourselves now whether we always agree with the leaders of our chosen position or faction. We should not. And if we do, then our positions are likely not honest, but come from a devotion to a person or a group.

Do not misunderstand: I approve wholeheartedly of labels. Many do not like them, but with a few words you can understand almost completely where I stand on a great many subjects. It seems a great hassle to inquire of a person his beliefs in every single issue that this world boasts when we could spend our time more efficiently by saying, “What are your political leanings? What religion do you follow?” With merely those two questions (and their answers), we can tell a great many things about a person.

But we should not confuse a label with fealty. My wife was conversing with a friend from France recently about the war and general politics. He accused Vice President Dick Cheney of taking bribes from Halliburton. Now, this point can be debated, and has been often of late. Cheney does not own stock in Halliburton, but he has received a couple of large payments supposedly as “deferred compensation,” so the fact that the administration has given them no-bid contracts seems suspicious. But then, those contracts are not as rare as some would have us believe, and were given to Halliburton by Bill Clinton also. The reason that these contracts are not rare is simple: Halliburton is simply the only company with the size and experience to do the work.

That particular debate is not the point. The point is that France’s government was recently under fire for taking bribes not from a private company, but a dictator and terrorist. Saddam Hussein, the story goes, gave French officials a great deal of money in exchange for two things: basically ignoring the oil-for-food agreement, which forbade Hussein from making much money off of Iraq’s oil, and to keep them out of the war.

Now, this scandal can be debated also, though now we are starting to see indictments over this affair, so evidence is present. It can be debated, but not in the way this man debated it. When confronted with these reports, our French acquaintance replied that America had forced the French to take the money. His fealty to his country and his leaders has made him dishonest in his arguments.

But this sort of loyalty need not be so extreme as my example. If you are a Conservative, and you believe President Bush’s education policy is just swell, then you are being intellectually dishonest, because that particular policy is quite Liberal. Likewise, Liberals should find no pleasure in Clinton’s welfare reform, but Conservatives should.

In fact, if you were one of those Democrats who blamed Bush’s domestic policy for the job losses, then you are dishonest (even ignoring the fact that your memory is so bad that you have forgotten a terrorist attack on this county). He passed one minor tax cut, but the rest of his policy came directly from the Democrat Party platform. Between steel tariffs, massive spending increases in education, and prescription drugs becoming a new entitlement, Democrats had nothing to complain about domestically. If Democrats believe that these policies caused a drop in the economy, then they are criticizing their own beliefs.

A Learned Opinion

So far we have made sure that our positions are at least defensible, but we can do a little more to move us toward the right. Now we must make sure that our opinions stand up to the test of time. We must see whether they are historically and philosophically accurate. It takes only a little time to explain what I mean here, but this is by far the hardest part of the process.

History can provide real life examples of almost anything we are trying to study. Even ideas that we consider new, such as Democracy or Communism, actually have long histories. For example, if you read the writings of William Bradford of the Mayflower Colony, you will notice that the Pilgrims debated, and tried, both Socialism and Capitalism. Reading that history will give us an insight as to how each system works.

History is not a scientific experiment, of course. What happened did not happen in a controlled environment. A group of people may have tried a certain theory, and several people died immediately afterward. Was it a flaw in the theory that did it, or was that Winter particularly and unexpectedly nasty? It is sometimes difficult to established direct cause-and-effect relationships in history, but we can get a much better understanding of the theories.

Furthermore, a man should learn his opponent’s position to strengthen his own. A Capitalist need not memorize Marx, Lennin, and Stalin, but he should have a basic idea of the ideas. It is by this conflict that a theory is refined and perfected. A missionary who has no notion of what the people around him believe will have few converts. A lawyer who has not looked at the opposition’s evidence will not likely win the case. Likewise, winning a debate comes not only by proving the strengths of your own arguments, but by pointing out the weaknesses in your opponent’s. We can certainly do this without calling names or making fallacious arguments, but it must be done.

For every theory in history, there has been someone arguing against it. We should seek out the philosophers who have rejected those theories we embrace. Not so that we will be swayed (though we may, but so that we might be strengthened. Marx’s work has been around more than a century, but if you can refute him honestly, then you have a better understanding of what is right or wrong.

Conclusions

Of course, being a little bit more certain is not being completely certain, but that sort of certainty cannot be achieved in this life. I have mentioned the scientific method before, but we must remember that this process requires repetitious experiments in controlled conditions, and politics, sociology, and religion cannot be observed in controlled conditions. Therefore we will never gain that scientific certainty we would like.

But we will have a theory that is honestly come by, and is reinforced by comparison and historical evidence. We do not know absolutely that we are right, but we have certainly made the first few steps.

Have a comment about this article or one of the others in this month's issue? Use our Respondere page to write to our editors.

TOP