Conventional wisdom too often means that otherwise smart people have stopped thinking. You can tell when it takes hold: Buzzwords get repeated. Obvious truths are denied. And the critical faculties, so essential for serious thought, are met with derision.
Ayn Rand points out there is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. It consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false." The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as the Argument from Intimidation.
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.
The Argument from Intimidation dominates today's discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification. But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said — not on content, but on tone of voice.
The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. "Surely you are not an advocate of anarchy, are you?" And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim — who answers, properly: "I am," — the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: "Oh, you couldn't be! Not really!" "Really." "But everybody knows that anarchy is not workable!" "I don't." "Oh, come now!" "Since I don't know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that anarchy is not workable?" "Oh, don't be ridiculous!" "Will you tell me the reasons?" "Well, really, if you don't know, I couldn't possibly tell you!"
All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.
If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on — that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum — that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.
Rand emphasizes that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede or supersede, the reasons on which it is based.
How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty. When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy's sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment — not anyone's approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one's own.
The Greek government uses the Argument from Intimidation to harass dissident bloggers. Premier George Papandreou of Greece crossed the Rubicon on October 18, 2010, when a deranged Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs destroyed a distinguished professor and dissident blogger, in order to appease Premier Erdogan of Turkey! That's why the Global Tax Revolt declared October 18 as the International Day Against Cybercop Brutality. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globaltaxrevolt
Global Tax Revolt points out the persecution of dissident bloggers is unquestionably a serious attack on freedom of speech, and contrary to Article 2 of Lisbon Treaty, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The disgusting government of Greece cannot bully the blogosphere without repercussions and blowbacks. The international civil society got a shock and awe from the brutality of the infamous Greek government on October 18, 2010.
========================================================
ADVERTISEMENTS
Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com
Starve the beast and join the Global Tax Revolt. Taxes are armed robbery, pure and simple. Let's get rid of all taxes now. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globaltaxrevolt
Advertise simultaneously on all posts of the 14 largest political Yahoo groups, of more than 41,000 members each, for only 1,000 euros per month. internetadvertisements@yahoo.com
========================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment