Unit Thrice Post

In this weeks blog post I will remix my response paper. This week I wrote about “countering” a fellow student’s blog post again. Countering was extremely interesting. I started out trying to prove my argument against that of my classmate, but then I remembered that I was supposed to add to the existing argument instead of flat out disprove it to make myself seem smart. As Harris writes “its not about proving how smart you are.” The concept of adding to an argument rather than refuting it was very calming.

The energy that goes into refuting an argument always comes off as vindictive or aggressive. This kind of energy can be energy draining, as the core of such a process is usually of the offensive-attack variety. Hating or at least disliking your rhetorical opponent can be unhealthy. But it also leads to more impassioned arguments in some circumstances. This new kind of understanding in order to formulate an idea that furthers the basis of your understanding mixed with the view of what you’re delicately opposing, was very enlightening. It made me think about this method’s implementation in political discourse or intellectual argument amongst anyone. It is a form of mediation away from I hate what you have to say because of this and that.

I believe mediation is the crux of understanding. The worst part about having an argument is when someone gets offended or one person has less respect for the other side than the other side has for them. These imbalances create instabilities that usually crumble the entire argument or attempts at understanding. The argumentative implications of “countering” are larger than the idea itself!  What if people started adding rather than retorting? It all comes back to love and understanding vs. othering and disrespect. The chinese-finger-trap of an argument can only be solved by working together. If you pull and pull and pull you only make it harder to free yourself. If you push together or work together you can get free, or in a rhetorical sense, come to a mutual understanding instead of building your intellectually defining idea of who you are and what ideas you identify/advocate for. This method of “countering” allows for a useful mediation in argument. See who one is dealing with by way of adding to their argument or idea with respect. Harris is saying poke, don’t stab. By countering one is making the effort to add instead of change an argument. To me, that’s priceless.

Every argument nowadays sounds like a fight over control and persuasion. Harris made me question that method’s assumptive position as the best way to find a consensus is a “war of idealism.” At the end, last person standing is the winner. Argument always comes off like sports. There has to be a winner to be an ending. I hate this. Harris provided a context where one could come into contact with an opposing viewpoint but instead of changing the other person’s mind with your ideas, which are completely separate to theirs, one could add to the opposing viewpoints ideas and challenge from within by adding rather than trying to surround the opposing opinion.