Eudemoniatic: On winning people to your cause.

PERSONAL NOTE: Hokay, so...the last four days have been a massive strain on me intellectually. I am buzzing around and feel like a late-stage Phaedrus from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a must-read for anyone interested in practical philosophy). I went to see a psychologist today on the advice of a friend, and a good thing too. My frenetic mental energy was taking me down a dark path, so I will (regrettably) have to be a little less involved in Occupy and put more energy into currently neglected parts of my life.

This post is about persuading people to your cause. Not all causes are just, but that is a topic for another post. All the people with whom I engage in debate here started with the proposition that they were against the Occupy movement (to some degree or another). Where they are at now I'm not sure, but the feedback I have received since indicate that they are willing to participate in discussion. And that is what we want. I will give my own analysis on the meta-discussion occurring 'below the surface' (i.e. what we are really debating about) but, as always, pay attention and come to your own conclusions.

WARNING: this is really, really long. Good for procrastination periods of 15-30 minutes. Much love.

Productive Debates

I had been getting increasingly agitated be the ignorance I was seeing all around me. The media, my peers, and (more fundamentally) the system we live in. This gave me the fight, the passion, to take people on. In the last few days I have come to view myself as a modern day Socrates. I'm sorry if this sounds like a delusion of grandeur but it's the closest analogy I can think of. My goal is to question others' beliefs. I do not claim to have a monopoly on truth, merely a set of ideas and morals that I have collected over the course of my inquisitive life. I am genuinely interested in where a good debate can lead, and try to keep myself open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I try to assess the good and the bad in arguments, and state my own case accordingly. With this approach, it is hard for the debate to fail to go somewhere interesting. But I'll let you be the judge.

Pru
Pru used to be a good friend of mine. She always had a keen sense of humour, and was pretty apt to call bullshit where she saw it. With my move to Melbourne, contact was virtually suspended, apart from the occasional brush on Facebook.

What led me to speak out was seeing repeated posts of Pru's decrying the protests as illegitimate, either because of the nature of the protestors or the lack of clear message. This types of posts infuriated me. Earlier, I had asked her whether she agreed with the 'basic message' of the Wall st protests; she said she did. 3 days later, I was dismayed to see another one of these 'articles' that are rapidly and widely becoming identified as media drivel.

I called her out.

Here the terms have been set. I have identified a contradiction in her behaviour, and asked her to identify it. I avoid a reversion to nihilistic humour (what Trolls thrive on) by putting our friendship on the line. Passion and dedication allows me to do this.

Her response, as a result, is considered and justified. Pru is a very intelligent person, and articulates well the reasons for feeling the way she does about Occupy. It is absolutely important, if this debate is going to be constructive, that her views are given weight, and be payed attention to.

A clarification that will narrow the terms of the debate, making it more productive.

An honest opinion of where she believes the movement to be at, but is unsure about their claim to 'truth'.

A criticism of the inability of the movement to satisfactorily articulate exactly what is wrong with the current state of affairs. Also, an identification of some hypocrisy within the movement itself.

An assertion that our current democracy adequately serves our needs as citizens. This is a great assertion; contesting it is Legitimate Debate. Also, an assertion that the current political system already empowers those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. Another assertion that the power of change really lies within the consumer. These are all productive assertions, as they can be productively criticised with reference to moral reasoning (see last post).

An acknowledgement that the underlying issues might be broader than what is currently being represented. An unhelpful criticism singling out certain kinds of protester practices as somehow delegitimising the underlying message.

And now we're getting somewhere. While Pru knows that, on a fundamental level, this cause is a just one, her feelings of inadequacy to affect change (symptomatic of our current state of affairs) prevents her from taking up a cause. She instead confines herself to what she believes that she is 'good' at, like being ironic and funny. This is a big shame as she is an individual with near unlimited potential.

see above

And now: the response. The way a response is crafted is incredibly important, especially where people feel personally invested in the ideas you are debating. Being told you're wrong, even gently, forces a kind of 'mental pain'. It is unpleasant. What we thought to be true might not be. We tend to believe what we believe, and something that forces us to reassess that can lead us to question if: we have a proper grip on reality, have good judgement, are being misinformed etc. This is part of why it is so important to retain a sense of intellectual agnosticism if you are really interested in Legitimate Debate.

Agree where you recognise truth, assert you own version where there is a conflict. Justify yourself.

I cannot overemphasise the importance of acknowledging that someone is right when you believe they are. It keeps the debate respectful and productive.