Lecture
A dispute is a clash of opinions and positions, during which each of the parties argue for their own understanding of the issues discussed and seeks to refute the arguments of the other side.
Dispute is an important means of clarifying and resolving issues of disagreement, a better understanding of what is not in any way clear and has not yet found a convincing rationale. Even if the participants in the dispute do not come to an agreement, in the course of the dispute they better understand both the positions of the other side and their own.
The art of dispute is called eristic.
Euristics has become widespread in ancient Greece due to the flourishing of political, judicial and moral controversy. Initially, eristika was understood as a means of finding truth and goodness through controversy, it had to teach the ability to convince others of the correctness of views expressed and, accordingly, the ability to incline a person to the behavior that seems necessary and appropriate. But gradually, euristics degenerated into learning how to argue in order to achieve the only goal - to win it at any cost, without caring about truth and justice at all. A variety of incorrect methods of achieving victory in a dispute received wide circulation. This seriously undermined the credibility of learning the art of argument. Eristika broke up into dialectic and sophistry. First developed
Socrates, who for the first time used the word "dialectic" itself to designate art, to conduct an effective dispute, dialogue, in which truth is achieved by mutually interested discussion of the problem and confrontation of opinions. Sophistika, which set the goal of a dispute to victory in it, and not the truth, significantly compromised the very idea of the art of dispute.
The use of dishonest or incorrect methods in a dispute does not, of course, undermine the very idea of a dispute as an interesting and important means of achieving mutual understanding between people and deepening knowledge about the world. Euristics as a study of the dispute and learning the art of its conduct is both legitimate and useful, but only on condition that the purpose of the dispute is to establish truth and good, and not just victory at any cost.
Euristics is not a separate science or a section of any science. It is a kind of “practical art,” like learning to walk or music.
Among the general requirements for a dispute are the following:
1. Do not argue unnecessarily. If there is an opportunity to reach agreement without a dispute, it is necessary to use it.
There are people who are ready to argue over and for no reason, sometimes they are even proud of it. Such inveterate debaters who get involved in a dispute for its own sake most often only hinder clarification of the case. It is always useful to remember that a dispute is not a value in itself, but as a means of achieving certain goals. If there is no clear and important goal or it can be achieved without any dispute, it is pointless to start a dispute. Constant focus on the dispute, on opposition to any opinions that do not completely coincide with one’s own opinion, initiating petty disputes, etc., does not characterize the person with the best of all.
At the same time, one should not be afraid of disputes and try to avoid them by any means. On fundamental issues that can not be solved without discussion and controversy, you need to argue.
It is especially dangerous to avoid disputes in scientific research. There is no need to create the appearance of like-mindedness and unanimity allegedly reigning in science. An integral feature of science is criticism. Without a critical attitude of scientists to strangers and to their own ideas, the growth and development of scientific knowledge is impossible.
The dispute is objective and necessary in the sense that it is one of the essential features of human communication. However, the controversy is not the only means of ensuring that people understand each other. It is not even the main such tool. A dispute for the sake of a dispute with the aim of proving the abstract rightness and shaming the enemy is unacceptable. The main task of the dispute is not in itself a victory over the opposing party, but the solution of some specific problem, the best of all, is its mutually acceptable solution.
Dispute is a complex phenomenon. It does not boil down to the collision of two incompatible statements. Flowing always in a certain context, it affects such traits of a person's character as dignity, pride, pride, etc. The manner of the dispute, the one hundred sharpness, the concessions of the disputing parties, the means they use are determined not only by considerations connected with the resolution of a particular problem, but also by the whole context in which it arose. You can achieve a formal victory in a dispute, insist on the rightness or expediency of your approach and at the same time lose something different, no less important. You failed to change the position of your opponent in the dispute, did not achieve his understanding, offended him, pushed away from interaction and mutual assistance in solving the problem that caused the dispute - these side effects of the dispute can significantly weaken or even nullify the effect of winning it.
2. Any dispute must have its own subject, its own subject. This is an obvious requirement to the dispute, but even it is sometimes violated.
It is desirable that the subject of the dispute is relatively clear. It is best to fix this object at the very beginning with a special statement in order to avoid a rather ordinary question later: what was the argument about?
Pointless disputes, disputes over problems that are not clear to the disputants, leave, as a rule, a heavy residue because of their incoherence and helplessness. By not giving participants the opportunity to discover their knowledge and abilities, such disputes present them in a distorted light. "The one that goes the furthest," Cromwell said, "who does not know where to go."
3. Another condition for the fruitfulness of the dispute: its theme should not be changed or replaced by another throughout the dispute.
This condition is rarely observed, which, in general, is understandable. At the beginning of the dispute, the topic is not, as a rule, sufficiently defined. This is revealed, however, only in the process of a dispute. Its participants are forced to constantly clarify their positions, which leads to a change in approaches to the topic of the dispute, to a shift in the emphasis of this very topic.
Clarification and specification of the positions of the disputants is an important point in a dispute. But you still have to keep in mind the main line of the dispute and try not to go far from it. If the subject of the dispute has changed, it is advisable to pay special attention to this and emphasize that the dispute over a new subject is, in essence, another, and not a previous dispute.
Many disputes end with the fact that their members are even more asserted that they are right. It would be hasty, however, to conclude from this the inefficiency of most disputes. The positions of the disputants may not have changed, but they undoubtedly became clearer than before the dispute. Far from any controversy ends with the fact that everyone is turning into "one faith." But almost every controversy helps the parties to clarify their positions, to find additional arguments for their defense. This explains the increased conviction of the participants in the ended dispute in their own rightness.
4. A dispute takes place only if there are incompatible ideas about the same object, phenomenon, etc. If there is no such incompatibility, soon it usually becomes clear that the disputants speak about different, but complementary aspects of the same object. There is nothing further to argue about.
5. The dispute presupposes a certain commonality of the initial positions of the parties, a certain uniform basis for them. Any dispute is based on certain prerequisites, there is no free base dispute. The commonness of the basis provides the initial mutual understanding of the disputants, will give the platform on which the confrontation can unfold. Those who do not understand each other at all are not able to argue, just as they are not able to come to an agreement.
In the Middle Ages they said: “They do not argue with heretics, they are burned”. We leave the punishment of heretics on the conscience of the time when the mores were harsh. The very first part of this saying, which speaks of the impossibility or rather the unreality of a dispute with heretics, is basically correct. A heretic is one who rejects some fundamental principles, refuses to accept a single basis for a given environment, which forms the basis of the forms of its life and communication. With such a person the dispute is really unreal. A dispute requires a certain commonality of the positions of the opposing sides, rooted in their feelings, faith and intuition. If there is no such community, and nothing seems to the parties equally obvious, then there is no dispute. It is difficult, for example, to discuss the details of the second coming of Christ with those who believe in Buddha; one who does not believe in extraterrestrial civilizations is unlikely to be able to be carried away by the dispute about the appearance of aliens.
Usually the causes of a dispute are simple and do not require special findings. But if the basis is not completely clear or interpreted in different ways, it is best to start with its clarification and clarification. Dispute without common prerequisites, without the same attitude to the original and undisputed ideas has little chance to be effective to some extent.
6. Successful case management requires a certain amount of logic. First of all, it is supposed to be able to derive consequences from one's own and those of others, to notice contradictions, to reveal the absence of logical connections between statements. Usually, for all these purposes, intuitive logic is enough, spontaneously developed skills of correct reasoning.
The requirement to be logical and consistent in a dispute does not imply, of course, that the dispute should unfold as a kind of purely formal proof of a certain point of view. In the course of a discussion or controversy, jokes, retreats, and many other things that are not directly related to the logic of thought development are appropriate. Live people are arguing among themselves, and not some kind of “logical machines”, concerned only with the steady deduction of the consequences from the received premises.
The well-known Greek orator Demosthenes, speaking in one difficult case, saw that the judges were absent-minded and inattentive. Demosthenes interrupted his speech and began to talk about the man who hired a donkey with a driver. The day was hot, and the rider, having dismounted, sat down to rest in the shade that the donkey cast. The driver objected that he had only rented a donkey, and not his shadow. The dispute turned into a litigation. Here Demosthenes fell silent, and when the judges asked him to finish the story, he noted with bitterness: “You are ready to listen to the fable about the shadow of an ass, but you don’t want to listen to an important matter”.
Joke, departure from the topic, etc. can sometimes be quite good helpers in a dispute.
7. The dispute requires a certain knowledge of the things in question.
This knowledge cannot be complete, otherwise controversy and controversy would not have arisen. But it should still be quite extensive. It’s bad when people start arguing about what they know only by hearsay, and they have no idea at all. And, nevertheless, the habit with aplomb to reason and argue about the little-known and even completely unknown in some has taken root quite deeply.
A person who is an expert in any field usually critically evaluates his knowledge in this area, although he may have devoted his entire life to studying it. He sins with self-confidence and a claim to broad knowledge, as a rule, one whose ideas are just superficial and shallow. How with irony notice ;! someone, a professor of medicine knows something about diseases, a doctor knows a lot, and a paramedic does everything. The lack of solid knowledge often goes hand in hand with the habit of approaching everything with ready-made measures and definitions, for each question having a ready answer.
8. In a dispute, you need to strive to clarify the truth and goodness - this is one of the most important, if not the most important requirement to the dispute.
The fundamental importance of this requirement was first emphasized, perhaps, by Socrates, who sharply debated with the sophists. The latter, as is well known, set themselves the goal of posing as the weak for the strong, and the strong for the weak, not caring at all about how things are.
9. In the dispute you need to be flexible.
The situation in the dispute is constantly changing. New arguments are introduced, previously unknown facts emerge, the participants' positions change - all this has to be reacted. But the flexibility of the tactics of the dispute does not imply an abrupt change of position with each new moment.
Having entered into an argument and clarified your attitude to the subject under discussion, you must stand firmly in a occupied position, trying to make it as specific and clear as possible. Allegories, hypotheses, the lack of direct answers - all this blurs the boundaries of the position, making the dispute evasive, or simply insignificant. At times, and evasiveness is good, but only at times. The rule should be a clear, unambiguously expressed position.
The two most common ways to handle a dispute are the most common: pliability and rigidity. More effective, however, the method is not rigid and not compliant, but rather combines the features of both. Where it is possible, it is necessary to look for points of contact and coincidence of views, and where the latter conflict, to insist on a decision based on impartial criteria that do not depend on the disputing parties. Stiffness is necessary when it comes to the substance of the matter; but if it comes to details, particulars, personal moments, subjective likes and dislikes, it is usually better to be flexible and tolerant. This will allow to solve complex controversial issues on the merits, bypassing petty altercations and at the same time without compromising our views and dignity.
10. We should not allow major mistakes in the strategy and tactics of the dispute.
It goes without saying that the dispute is intended, if not resolved, then at least to clarify the problem under discussion. And, nevertheless, it happens that discussion and controversy lead to just the opposite result. The initial relatively clear-cut ideas in the course of the dispute gradually fade, and by the end of it there is not much left of the original clarity and seemingly convincing arguments.
The most common cause of this is the complexity of the subject under discussion. The clash of different ideas about him exposes their partialness and incompleteness. In a paradoxical way, the clarifying function of a dispute turns into its opposite: that which was relatively clear before the argument becomes hazy and dark after it.
Worse, when a dispute ends in a fog because of the inability to argue, due to obvious mistakes in the strategy and tactics of the dispute.
Strategy - this is the most common principles of argumentation, to bring some statements to substantiate or reinforce others.
Tactics - the search and selection of arguments or arguments, the most convincing in terms of the topic under discussion in a given audience, as well as reactions to the counter-arguments of the other side in the process of a dispute.
The solution of the strategic problem of the dispute involves compliance with the above requirements. They are simple in their general formulation, but often complex in a specific application.
11. Do not be afraid to admit the input of the dispute their mistakes. The main thing in the dispute is to contribute its share to the positive development of the discussed issue. A person who is convinced of the infidelity of some of his ideas must say this with complete frankness and certainty, which will make the dispute more fruitful.
It is necessary to be tolerant of criticism and not to be afraid that someone will tell us about mistakes. In a dispute, when critical comments are made in the face, this is especially important.
Comments
To leave a comment
Logics
Terms: Logics