![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeikoLast night I found myself talking at cross purposes with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
weaselator again. It has happened often enough and bothered me enough to have a think as to why this keeps happening. It didn't use to. I am almost positive that it didn't happen before. I was running through the entire conversation in my head when it finally hit me (like a truck, or a train, or other similar object with a great deal of momentum):
I wasn't actually arguing something contrary to his worldview or opinion. I was actually arguing against the universality of his worldview or opinion.
I am positive that this is something I picked up since starting at LSE. Or, rather, that this is something formalised debating has been attempting to hammer into me for the last six years and it's only just sunk in. If I was debating what I felt to be 'my' side, I'd set up an argument and say, "right, then, take your best shot". But, somehow, I've recently ended up doing more opposition prep (or playing devil's advocate) than not. So, rather than stating an argument that I felt weak to begin with, I'd poke holes in the other's person's argument. Easiest way's to take their side, run with it - and then end up in a situation where it doesn't apply.
Case in point - we were discussing the idea of 'Europe'.weaselator argued that Europe was a political entity outside of formal alliances and maps because the principle of self-determination made it such. Now, this makes perfect sense, except if you apply it to a case such as Palestine where the principle of self-determination matters not one whit. It's not so much that self-determination is irrelevant or wrong in defining an entity, but that it doesn't always apply and is thus dependent on other factors (such as political weight, economic strength, how huge your weapons are, etc etc).
The reliance on atlases - another tangent - was yet another thing that may work in general but in specific instances will not work. So,weaselator argued that a poll of twenty or thirty atlases, all showing 'political' maps, will all have roughly the same idea of what 'Europe' constitutes. Jay (over for dinner and probably rather confused as to whether this ritualised combat was normal after-dinner conversation) agreed with me that it depends what country issued and atlas and when. Take a USSR-era atlas. The conceptualisation of Europe will be very, very different.
My argument wasn't so much that I had an alternate vision of Europe to which people should subscribe, but to force a stalemated acknowledgement that alternate visions exist.
This explains the jumping around and the tangents we were forever taking. He had a city state and I was a bunch of marauding hoardes, looking for a weakness in the defences. It was... weird. Especially because he was growing more and more bewildered that I wasn't making my point, and I was growing more and more frustrated that he wouldn't acknowledge his position had flaws. At the end of the day, that was my position.
This is why I have decided to blame formal debates and especially LSE. I used to have opinions. Now I just... disagree. ("Ah, but you'll see that in these circumstances, your position is untenable!")
I'm not quite sure what I think about that. But there must be something wrong with it.
weaselator again. It has happened often enough and bothered me enough to have a think as to why this keeps happening. It didn't use to. I am almost positive that it didn't happen before. I was running through the entire conversation in my head when it finally hit me (like a truck, or a train, or other similar object with a great deal of momentum):I wasn't actually arguing something contrary to his worldview or opinion. I was actually arguing against the universality of his worldview or opinion.
I am positive that this is something I picked up since starting at LSE. Or, rather, that this is something formalised debating has been attempting to hammer into me for the last six years and it's only just sunk in. If I was debating what I felt to be 'my' side, I'd set up an argument and say, "right, then, take your best shot". But, somehow, I've recently ended up doing more opposition prep (or playing devil's advocate) than not. So, rather than stating an argument that I felt weak to begin with, I'd poke holes in the other's person's argument. Easiest way's to take their side, run with it - and then end up in a situation where it doesn't apply.
Case in point - we were discussing the idea of 'Europe'.
weaselator argued that Europe was a political entity outside of formal alliances and maps because the principle of self-determination made it such. Now, this makes perfect sense, except if you apply it to a case such as Palestine where the principle of self-determination matters not one whit. It's not so much that self-determination is irrelevant or wrong in defining an entity, but that it doesn't always apply and is thus dependent on other factors (such as political weight, economic strength, how huge your weapons are, etc etc).The reliance on atlases - another tangent - was yet another thing that may work in general but in specific instances will not work. So,
weaselator argued that a poll of twenty or thirty atlases, all showing 'political' maps, will all have roughly the same idea of what 'Europe' constitutes. Jay (over for dinner and probably rather confused as to whether this ritualised combat was normal after-dinner conversation) agreed with me that it depends what country issued and atlas and when. Take a USSR-era atlas. The conceptualisation of Europe will be very, very different. My argument wasn't so much that I had an alternate vision of Europe to which people should subscribe, but to force a stalemated acknowledgement that alternate visions exist.
This explains the jumping around and the tangents we were forever taking. He had a city state and I was a bunch of marauding hoardes, looking for a weakness in the defences. It was... weird. Especially because he was growing more and more bewildered that I wasn't making my point, and I was growing more and more frustrated that he wouldn't acknowledge his position had flaws. At the end of the day, that was my position.
This is why I have decided to blame formal debates and especially LSE. I used to have opinions. Now I just... disagree. ("Ah, but you'll see that in these circumstances, your position is untenable!")
I'm not quite sure what I think about that. But there must be something wrong with it.
