Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Aristotle - The Art of the Argument - Brandon Hafeli #8

     Aristotle was all about spreading the word on how to achieve true happiness. Eudaimonia, as he called it. However, while spreading this word, as well as while discussing all of his other philosophies on the matters of friendship and art, he stumbled upon many individuals who he saw as frustrating. These individuals were the ones who could trump a logical, well-thought argument with ideas that were not nearly as thought out. They won by the manner of how they argued, rather than the content.

     This is something that many of us have likely experienced before. Let me ask if this situation sounds familiar, be it an argument you witnessed or even partook in yourself: Person A has been presenting their thoughts and ideas while still being open to critique. They recognize the idea that they could be wrong, but they still believe that they are right. Person B know FOR A FACT that they are correct, and they will get as loud, as obnoxious and as disrespectful as they need to in order to be recognized as the victor of the argument that they are having. Conversation will often involve frequent cutting-off of the other individual, escalating volume, hurt feelings, and in some extreme scenarios, tarnished friendships.

     This is the kind of scenario that Aristotle frequently ran into. He would often find that many arguments and debates would be heavily influenced by factors outside of the topic itself. To help to remedy this, Aristotle invented "Rhetoric." Rhetoric was a style that was purposed to give like-minded people who were frustrated of constantly losing arguments for reasons outside of the argument itself. Rhetoric's theme was about the individual who would not listen to reason; our "Person B." In order to better persuade that individual, Aristotle focused on soothing the dissenter so that they become less agitated. He did this by using such tactics such as making jokes during the argument in order to diffuse some tense situations. He also tried to the heart of the person's fears, so that he may cut around those fears or try to diffuse them during an argument.

     Aristotle's work to find a better way to argue with someone who will not take 'no' for an answer is about the best we can do in today's age. Sometimes rhetoric works, but sometimes it does not. I believe that in situations that rhetoric does not work, then almost nothing will. Sometimes Person B will just continue to shout. Sometimes they will not entertain the idea that they just might be wrong. Sometimes, no matter what points you make, you will always get the same reply: 


     But we should not get disheartened at the fact that some people just cannot be convinced, as frustrating as it is. We should instead savor the arguments where you and I, who feverishly disagreed with each other at first, still do, but we recognize that the other side has valid points and learn from them. Aristotle developed and gave us many tools to debate with, but it is ultimately up to us to decide what to take away from each and every argument, for better or for worse. Hopefully, we can one day reach a state where almost every person can have a well-thought, respectful conversation that betters both parties. If not, maybe some day we will all just end up arguing like this:

3 comments:

  1. WELL DONE! Very good arguments, I really liked the media you added. Drump was halarious and the dogs at the end, well at least they didnt get physical. Nice addition at the end to make it fun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this can apply to many things especially in today's politics. Often it's best in these situations to give credible evidence and proof with your argument and no matter what they say you know what you believe is right

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really liked reading your arguments and I think this topic a lot. I think knowing how to argue effectively is a super important topic in today's culture.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.