Metaphysical Jokers

My recent experience with debating what I consider New Atheists has led me to conclude that there is a prevailing notion in debates and discussions today.  The concept is that as long as I can defeat my opponent's arguments I demonstrate that I am right.

The model of argument for the New atheist is the following.  Attack, attack, attack, attack.  During my entire discussion the focus was on my arguments for God.  The mode of argumentation was clearly to put the theist on the defensive.  When I started conversations about their own assumptions, this led to complaints about "changing the subject."  Given that the forum was a atheist Facebook fan page one would think that the participants would be open to critique of their philosophical viewpoints.

But this principle is not limited to New Atheists.  Open any political, social, religious, or philosophical commentary these days.  The prevailing mode of discussion is "why my opponent is wrong."  Much time is spent dissecting the various  ways those who hold views in opposition are incorrect.  Very little if any consideration is given to how the arguer is right.

While this is the main mode of argument there is an even more insidious form of this kind of argumentation.  The type who argues that nothing can be known.  No greater truths, nothing beyond the basic sense can be known with any certainty.

I call these "metaphysical jokers."  Like the iconic villain from the move "The Dark Knight," these individuals simply destroy in an attempt to prove everyone wrong.  They propose nothing, advance nothing.  They only detract, destroy, obliterate.  Oftentimes they will employ arguments that contradict each other when attacking different positions.

They do not believe anything, and only leech off of those who do.  They do not seek truth.  They do not attempt to hold any ideas.  Oftentimes they are the worst of advocates, but retreat in the face of any counterargument.  They have no beliefs they will defend, but only act upon.

This is the modern sophistry.  The natural end of unrestricted critical doubt.  The emptiness of undisciplined thought.   It is anti-thought.  A betrayal of reason.  And a perversion of the our ability to think.

Is this what reason ultimately brings us to?  By no means.  But first we must examine the root error in this line of "anti-thinking."  This we will examine later.

On sophistry and modern variations

One of the more unfortunate aspects of modern debates is the fascination with 'meta.' In particular 'meta' discussions I have found to be particularly distracting and at other times those who employ such tactics are simply dishonest.

My feelings about 'meta' are aptly described by Jeff Atwood:

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the meta. It's seductive in a way that is subtly but deeply dangerous. It's far easier to introspect and write about the process of, say .. blogging .. than it is to think up, research, and write about an interesting new topic on your blog. Meta-work becomes a reflex, a habit, an addiction, and ultimately a replacement for real productive work.

In particular meta-argument and meta-discussion I find to be particularly odious. While at times it may be useful to reflect on style of argumentation, it can quickly become a substitute for actual thinking, as well as a dishonest form of argumentation.

But such people are not new to the world. The ancient Greeks struggled with what are called 'sophists.' Sophists studied rhetoric solely for the purpose of learning how to convince people. What they convinced people of what irrelevant, only that they got paid.

The Greek philosophers reviled the Sophists for good reason. The Sophist offered nothing save for the power to convince. There was no truth, no purpose in such thinking. Only the perversion of language and discussion to manipulate people. It was an anti-philosophy.

The modern inheritors of sophistry are the meta-discussion and meta-argument types. Like their predecessors they propose nothing and advance nothing save their own entertainment. Far from advancing knowledge it hinders because truth is not what is sought, but a side effect at best. In another post we will examine why sophistry and its modern permutations are so dangerous to actual thought.