Crystal: What I'm saying is, why do we inherently seem to value "reasonable arguments" over something more instinctive? Why is being quite extreme, or refusing to back something up any less valuable? Surely we should value these sorts of arguments for what they are?
Mikhalia: Look, I'm going to give you a very practical example here. What if I had refused to "take the middle ground" or consider "reasonable arguments" while I was studying the events in 1936 Germany? I could have ended up a Nazi. *
*this is a bit extreme, and is a case of "the Nazi Fallacy". I expound on my thoughts below.
Crystal: Look, I suppose I'm not talking about anything pratical or any actual action you would take. I'm thinking more in terms of writings.
Mikhalia: I think you're absolutely right about this, actually. In writing, anything should be allowed.
(NB: we are forgetting here the "extreme importance" our writings could have on future generations of scholars)
Crystal: I mean, what I am really getting at, is that when we study an argument, why can we not value it for it's very extremeness? It is only because of convention that we don't value extremeness, and that we prefer a reasonable middle ground.
Mikhalia: This sounds like relativism. We don't want that.
Crystal: No. Some things are still actually wrong and right. Having extreme views is right.
Mikhalia: Who decides that?
Crystal: I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment