Remember that the other person is just as concerned with avoiding giving you offence - unless they are boors, in which case you are probably better off without them at any rate. Otherwise, what you say is a fundamental problem to which there is no one answer. Good manners are a start, but the most important thing, I would say, is to understand the categories from which your opponent is arguing. As Chesterton once said, there is no point charging an atheist with the terrible crime of atheism - or a Christian with the terrible crime of Christianity. The best position to be arguing from is: "I understand what you are saying, and I still disagree with you."
Another important point is, in my view, that argument is not about trying to convince the other guy. If that happens, that's great, but the real purpose of argument - which can be usefully carried out even against the most unyelding of opponents - is to expose your own views to challenge, counter-argument and criticism, so as to find out weak points, improve them, or even abandon them if you find something is just plain wrong. Argument is part of the process of refining one's ideas, and as such can be usefully and even courteously carried out even with people who have nothing in common with you except honesty. At least, that is my ideal.
Re: Gnostic heresies
Date: 2007-07-16 06:36 pm (UTC)Another important point is, in my view, that argument is not about trying to convince the other guy. If that happens, that's great, but the real purpose of argument - which can be usefully carried out even against the most unyelding of opponents - is to expose your own views to challenge, counter-argument and criticism, so as to find out weak points, improve them, or even abandon them if you find something is just plain wrong. Argument is part of the process of refining one's ideas, and as such can be usefully and even courteously carried out even with people who have nothing in common with you except honesty. At least, that is my ideal.