The ancient philosopher Archytas argued for an unlimited universe. Basically, he said that if one went to the end of the universe with a staff and extended it, it would go “into” something, meaning that there was no end. Every approach to the end would meet a new “something” into which one could extend the staff.
And that’s exactly what happens when you try to argue politics with someone who will not yield to your logic. You can make as many fine points as you want; you can reach what you believe to be an end, a conclusion. But the mind of your opponent will provide yet another “something” into which your argument must reach. You can never get to the end because your political opponent will simply provide more space into which you must reach. “Sure, maybe what you said is correct,” the opponent will say, and then offer, “but what about this example or detail that you didn't mention?”*
You can never reach the end. It is possible that Archytas’ argument for an unlimited universe is flawed. It is possible that there is, as Plato and Aristotle believed, a limit, an end—THE END. But in political arguments, there appear to be no limits, no ends that any opponent can ever reach. At least, that seems to be the circumstance in today’s political universe—and maybe it has always been thus.
*Want an example? Yesterday, I caught part of VP Pence's speech at the RNC convention. In the single sentence that I heard as I walked past the TV on my way to do something, Pence said that the 2020 violence in cities has to stop." Today, I heard a reporter with an agenda say something similar to "Pence didn't mention the death of So-n-So." So, it doesn't really matter if one makes a comment that is general and applicable to specific circumstances because the opposition will simply say there was no mention of this or that specific incident. And, as you know, with billions of people on the planet, there's no way anyone can mention all the incidents. No one can extend the staff to the end of the political universe.
And that’s exactly what happens when you try to argue politics with someone who will not yield to your logic. You can make as many fine points as you want; you can reach what you believe to be an end, a conclusion. But the mind of your opponent will provide yet another “something” into which your argument must reach. You can never get to the end because your political opponent will simply provide more space into which you must reach. “Sure, maybe what you said is correct,” the opponent will say, and then offer, “but what about this example or detail that you didn't mention?”*
You can never reach the end. It is possible that Archytas’ argument for an unlimited universe is flawed. It is possible that there is, as Plato and Aristotle believed, a limit, an end—THE END. But in political arguments, there appear to be no limits, no ends that any opponent can ever reach. At least, that seems to be the circumstance in today’s political universe—and maybe it has always been thus.
*Want an example? Yesterday, I caught part of VP Pence's speech at the RNC convention. In the single sentence that I heard as I walked past the TV on my way to do something, Pence said that the 2020 violence in cities has to stop." Today, I heard a reporter with an agenda say something similar to "Pence didn't mention the death of So-n-So." So, it doesn't really matter if one makes a comment that is general and applicable to specific circumstances because the opposition will simply say there was no mention of this or that specific incident. And, as you know, with billions of people on the planet, there's no way anyone can mention all the incidents. No one can extend the staff to the end of the political universe.
RSS Feed