by Nick
After spending a great deal of time arguing with Libby on these pages I have noticed something, there appears to be a fundamental difference in how each side presents their positions. I dont mean style, both of us are very sarcastic and downright mean at times. The difference to which I am referring, is how contradictions are dealt with. Contradictions are pesky things, because they demand an answer. Something you believe doesnt jive with reality, so what do you do?
Well if you are intellectually honest you are forced to give up old delusions in favor of a position which better reflects reality. If intellectual honesty is not your thing, then you simply gloss over the contradiction, or as many on the left tend to do now a days, claim that contradictions are perfectly fine, and should not cause the slightest bit of introspection. It is Post Modernism philosophy applied to political policy. The intellectually honest person finds a contradiction and changes their views to best reflect reality. The intellectually dishonest person demands that reality change to correspond to their views.
A=0. But how can this be? If culture is as one sociologist put it Societies attempt to come up with a coherent set of answers to the existential situations we find ourselves in throughout the course of our lives. Then how can we simply gloss over reality? How can one ignore a contradiction in their argument?
So watch closely. Watch what happens when an obvious contradiction is faced, and see how the person reacts. That will tell you allot about how they process information. It will tell you allot about their concepts regarding truth and absolutes. If all of their positions point toward a certain description, and yet they are unwilling to accept the definition, you are probably speaking with a True Believer.
I am not suggesting that as soon as you find a contradiction you immediately change your belief system. But it should cause you to diligently search out a logical answer. If one is not to be found, then you have a choice to make. You can either modify your beliefs to correspond to reality and logic, or you can abandon reason in search for your own ideal.
Having kids forced me into a position of questioning everything I believed. I did not want to be the sort of parent who said because I said so. Now ther e are times when I cant field all of the questions my 5 year old has for me concerning playing in the street, and her response to my instructions must be immediate. But when the day comes, where she wants answers from daddy regarding our core beliefs, I want to give her a well rounded argument for why our family believes what we do. Why we are Christian, why we are conservative, why we believe in political and economic liberty. Why we believe that personal responsibility is paramount.
I use some of the exchanges here as part of a broad program to put my ideas to the test in a public forum where anybody can respond. Where someone may present an argument I havent heard.
But I will admit that I have been harsh to Libby. I disagree vehemently with almost all, if not all of her policy positions. But I will agree to tone it down unilaterally. I am a smart ass to be sure, so this will be hard, and Im trusting that Tina and Jack will remind me of this if I slip up.