Remember what Simplicio says? “Contra negantes principia non est disputandum.” * That’s where we are today. We live in an age when political groups argue from axiomatic positions rather than from reason. What one group assumes to be self-evident, another group denies as a self-evident precept.
That means that no one can advance an argument. In Galileo’s The Two Chief World Systems, written in the form of a debate, the character Simplicio makes the statement about axioms (principia) and then says he can’t be persuaded by reason. Whatever seems to be a self-evident truth is beyond argumentation. And though every age prior to and post Galileo has adhered to its axioms, this current one seems to be the epitome of such adherence.
That even Euclid’s geometry axioms have been both questioned and refuted is a good indication that things that appear self-evident aren’t always so. The name-calling we see today in pundit shows and in social media rest on such axiomatic thinking. “Why, it’s just self-evident that So-n-So is Such-n-Such.” I will leave you to supply the names and accusations.
Humans will always find axioms for their polar positions, but now that we live in an age of one-liners, headlines, and conspiracy hypotheses, there appears to be little anyone can do to convince others through rational discussion. We’ve lost the art of debate and found the art of innuendo.
Arguing from different axioms will never result in a consensus. All who argue thus are modern incarnations of Simplicio. ** There are very few people who will change what they believe to be a self-evident truth because of someone else’s reasoning. Think about that the next time you get into a heated debate about contemporary issues. Unless both sides of an argument are willing to deny their own axioms’ validity through reasoning, no one is going to win a debate except through ad hominem and ad populum attacks in which the louder and more widespread axiom is more attractive to the unconvinced mind than a quieter and less widespread axiom.
And that’s how political debates go nowadays. Assume and argue, rather than question and debate. Ultimately, every public argument can be reduced to a prideful holding of an axiomatic position. To change means wounding pride, not logic. To accept the argument of another over political matters requires denying one’s own basic assumptions. Very few of us have the humility to do that because most of us are incarnations of Simplicio.
*Basically: “It’s no use arguing against the denial of axioms.”
**One example that rests on axiom: Health care as a “right.” Another: The economic efficacy of wealth redistribution by government fiat.
That means that no one can advance an argument. In Galileo’s The Two Chief World Systems, written in the form of a debate, the character Simplicio makes the statement about axioms (principia) and then says he can’t be persuaded by reason. Whatever seems to be a self-evident truth is beyond argumentation. And though every age prior to and post Galileo has adhered to its axioms, this current one seems to be the epitome of such adherence.
That even Euclid’s geometry axioms have been both questioned and refuted is a good indication that things that appear self-evident aren’t always so. The name-calling we see today in pundit shows and in social media rest on such axiomatic thinking. “Why, it’s just self-evident that So-n-So is Such-n-Such.” I will leave you to supply the names and accusations.
Humans will always find axioms for their polar positions, but now that we live in an age of one-liners, headlines, and conspiracy hypotheses, there appears to be little anyone can do to convince others through rational discussion. We’ve lost the art of debate and found the art of innuendo.
Arguing from different axioms will never result in a consensus. All who argue thus are modern incarnations of Simplicio. ** There are very few people who will change what they believe to be a self-evident truth because of someone else’s reasoning. Think about that the next time you get into a heated debate about contemporary issues. Unless both sides of an argument are willing to deny their own axioms’ validity through reasoning, no one is going to win a debate except through ad hominem and ad populum attacks in which the louder and more widespread axiom is more attractive to the unconvinced mind than a quieter and less widespread axiom.
And that’s how political debates go nowadays. Assume and argue, rather than question and debate. Ultimately, every public argument can be reduced to a prideful holding of an axiomatic position. To change means wounding pride, not logic. To accept the argument of another over political matters requires denying one’s own basic assumptions. Very few of us have the humility to do that because most of us are incarnations of Simplicio.
*Basically: “It’s no use arguing against the denial of axioms.”
**One example that rests on axiom: Health care as a “right.” Another: The economic efficacy of wealth redistribution by government fiat.
RSS Feed