14.4 Four types of dispute The basis of division of disputes Discussion, controversy, eclecticism Sophistry

What is called the common name "dispute" has several options.

The basis of division of disputes

First of all, disputes are divided into those in which only correct methods of conducting dispute are allowed, and those in which incorrect methods of conducting dispute are used.

Further, disputes can be divided into those whose goal is the achievement of truth, and those whose ultimate goal is victory over the enemy.

It would be an oversimplification to think that the goal of every dispute can only be truth or, at the very least, the achievement of general agreement on unresolved issues that turned out to be a source of dispute. Man is not only a rational and knowing, but also an active being. Action is always success or failure, success or failure. It should not be so that success is achieved only by those who are guided by the truth, and that failure is the inevitable lot of those who are not particularly concerned with it. Sometimes success is achieved by improper means.

An action is impossible without a wreath: statements about goals, norms, patterns, ideals, etc. Truth is a property of descriptions, and a dispute about it is a dispute about the consistency of the description with the real state of affairs. Disputes about evaluations that direct action do not relate to disputes about truth, since evaluations are neither true nor false.

There are, therefore, debates about descriptions and debates about ratings. The ultimate goal of the former is truth, i.e. achieving a description that meets reality. The purpose of disputes about assessments is the approval of some assessments and, accordingly, the adoption of a specific, determined by them, direction of future activities. The word “victory” directly refers only to disputes about evaluations and the values ​​they express. Victory is the affirmation of one of the opposing systems of values. In disputes about the truth of the victory of one of the disputants, one can speak only in a figurative sense: when the truth is revealed as a result of a dispute, it becomes the property of both of the disputants and the “victory” of one of them has a purely psychological character.

So, according to their purpose, the disputes are divided into pursuing truth and pursuing victory over the opposite side. According to their means, they are subdivided into using only correct techniques and also using various incorrect techniques.

Combining these two divisions of disputes, we obtain four varieties of them, which can be called discussion, polemic, eclecticism, and sophistry.

Discussion is a dispute aimed at the achievement of truth and using only correct methods of conducting a dispute.

Controversy - a dispute aimed at defeating the opposite side and using only correct techniques.

Eclecticism is a dispute aimed at achieving truth, but using for this and inappropriate methods.

Sophistry is a dispute that aims to achieve victory over the opposite side using both correct and incorrect methods.

Discussion, controversy, eclecticism

Discussion is one of the most important forms of communication, a method for solving controversial problems and a peculiar way of knowing. It allows you to better understand what is not fully clear and has not yet found a convincing justification. And even if the participants in the discussion do not come to an agreement, they definitely reach a better understanding during the discussion.

The benefit of the discussion is that it reduces the moment of subjectivity. To the convictions of an individual or a group of people, she communicates general support and thereby a certain validity.

The immediate task of the discussion is to achieve a certain degree of consensus among the participants on the thesis under discussion.

The means used in the discussion should be correct and, as a rule, be recognized by all who take part in it. The use of other means usually leads to a break in the discussion.

The controversy, in many ways similar to the discussion, differs significantly from the latter in terms of both its purpose and the means used.

The goal of the controversy is not to reach agreement, but to win over the other side, to assert one’s own point of view. The means used in the controversy must be correct, but they do not have to be so neutral that all participants agree with them. Each of them applies those techniques that he finds necessary to achieve victory, and does not consider how they correspond to the ideas of other participants in the controversy about acceptable methods of dispute.

It is this distinction between goals and means of discussion and controversy that underlies the fact that the opposite side in the discussion is usually referred to as “the opponent”, and in the polemics it is called the “opponent”. The controversy can be compared with military actions that do not imply that the enemy will agree with the means used against him; discussion is like a “war game”, during which it is permissible to rely only on funds available to the other side and recognized by it.

Although the controversy is mainly aimed at asserting one's position, one must constantly remember that winning an erroneous point of view, gained through the tricks and weaknesses of the other side, is usually short-lived and incapable of moral satisfaction.

In the most general sense, eclecticism is a combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and possibly incompatible ideas, concepts, styles, etc. As a methodological principle, eclecticism appeared for the first time in ancient philosophy as an expression of decline and intellectual impotence of the latter. Eclecticism was widely used in medieval scholasticism, when dozens and hundreds of heterogeneous, internally unrelated pros and cons of a certain position were cited.

The debate about truth, using and incorrect techniques, can be called "eclecticism" on the grounds that such techniques badly agree with the very nature of truth. Say, lavishing compliments on all those present during a dispute or, on the contrary, threatening them with force, you can incline them to the opinion that 137 is a prime number. But does the truth itself gain in this way of asserting it? Hardly.

However, eclectic debates, in which truth is supported by foreign means, exist, and they are not as rare as they may seem. They are even found in science, especially in the period of the formation of new scientific theories, when new problems are mastered and the synthesis of separate facts, ideas and hypotheses into a single system is still unattainable. It is known that Galileo, defending the Copernican’s heliocentric system once, won thanks not least to his style and brilliant technique of persuasion: he wrote in Italian, and not in the rapidly outdated Latin language, and addressed directly to people fervently protesting against old ideas and related canons of learning. For truth itself, it does not matter what language it describes and what specific people support it. Nevertheless, the propaganda arguments of Galileo played a positive role in the dissemination and strengthening of the hypothesis. Copernicus. Truth is born in controversy, and it is asserted, ultimately, by correct means. But science is being done by living people who are affected by improper methods. It is not surprising, therefore, that in discussions about truth sometimes there is a temptation to use some kind of soft forms of such methods.

Attitudes towards eclecticism as a type of dispute must be weighed and take into account the situation in which not completely correct means were used to protect all the obvious truth.

What deserves unconditional condemnation is sophistry — a dispute in which any means are used to achieve victory over the enemy, including those that are obviously incorrect. In a dispute, as in other matters, one cannot be illegible in the means used. One should not enter into an argument with the sole purpose of defeating it at any cost, without regard for anything, even with truth and good.