I am in the midst of a conversation with someone about something that drives me so nuts that I figured I should make a blog post about it. I want this thought to live on in history (as much as any blog post will allow) and I want to go on record as having said it.
When you make a political argument or try to state your reasons for your political beliefs, I think you are acting like somewhat of a tool if you use a fictional story to make your point for you. Yes, I know that the Hobbit and the Lord Of The Rings are powerful works of fantasy written by a very smart man with a lot of worldly knowledge. But please do not tell me that the sole reason you are against the death penalty is because of Gandalf’s little speech to Frodo about giving and taking life and who are you to decide. Especially since in making that choice you are laying aside all of the killing Gandalf does in subsequent acts.
I know as well as many and better than most that the Harry Potter books are also powerful stories. But the folks who use those as arguments for or against the Iraq war, intervening in Darfur or even libertarianism need to get a handle on their thinking.
And I’ll go you one better. While I think that every word of the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant (yes, I’m one of those) I don’t think you should use the Bible as your sole argument in politics either. Because, frankly, there are many people out there who equate the Bible with the same level of fantasy as Tolkein and Rowling and will not be impressed or swayed by your handy “It says in Romans 1″ argument.
I think if you believe something strongly enough to stake your reputation on it you should be able to defend that belief in something like a court of law. You should have much evidence from many places to support your point of view. And frankly, literature doesn’t count as reasoned evidence.
While literature underscores the poetic value of the points being made it should rarely inform the points and never be the sole basis for them.
I would imagine the rules of argumentation I learned from Ravi Zaccharias apply to politics just as much as they do to philosophy.
There are basically 3 levels of argumentation
1) Theory. This is the dry, strictly academic level where we posit high-minded concepts, strictly applying the rules of logic.
2) The Arts. Andrew Fletcher said, “Let me write the songs of a nation — I don’t care who writes its laws.” He might have overstated it a bit, but movies, television, and literature have far more of an impact on society than almost anything else. If you don’t think that our next president will be decided with heavy influence from Letterman and Leno (more than, say, the debates) , you are in for a surprise.
3) Kitchen-table talk. This is “where people live”, as I like to say. Many high-minded ideas fall apart when applied to actual lives.
Zacharias says that to be effective, you should argue at level 1, illustrate at level 2, and apply at level 3.
So, I’d respectfully disagree. If you can’t include the arts and real-life applications in an argument, you will lose. That’s been my experience, at least.
“include” is different than “base on”
Amen. Another related pet peeve of mine is speakers’ taking snippets of poems or other quotations to “prove” a point or make an impression, especially when they have no idea what that snippet means in context. I.e., using the oft-abused Robert Frost to encourage the audience to go out on a limb for something ’cause that poet says he was so glad he took the road less travelled.
Nope. He just said it made a big difference. Read it. Come to think of it, we do the same thing with the Bible. But that’s another rant.
Holly, exactly. Plus, if folks actually read the poem, they’d see that, at the time, the two roads looked pretty much the same:
He wasn’t taking some daring chance. He had two choices at the time that seemed equal.
So, yes, too, that’s part of the problem with hewing to art so closely for guidance. Sometimes, often, you can be misunderstanding it.
OH, and I did want to make a few points about Ravi Zacharias.
Slarti, he’s a Christian apologist. His “three levels” thing–with which I inherently disagree–is speaking to religious apologetics and specifically making the case for Christ.
I disagree with it because I don’t think that the fundamentals of Christ change with the whole “Kitchen table talk” thing.
The arts, though, are an expression of extant belief–not an informer. I mean, you can include the arts to say “this poem or painting expresses what I have come to believe” but if you say “I believe this BECAUSE of a poem or painting” you are operating on what is quite literally a sophomoric level.
Nope. He just said it made a big difference.
And he also said that he “shall be telling this with a sigh” which I’ve always interpreted to imply either wistfulness or regret.
Kat,
True, true.
Without the underlying truth, the spirit will wander where it will. Without the spirit, truth becomes a kind of drudgery.
I still believe Jesus chose his words carefully to the woman at the well.
I don’t think any belief should be rooted in either side of the brain. It will start on one side, but if the other doesn’t eventually agree, it’s not a belief worth having.
Interesting argument, one where I respectfully disagree.
You and B. come at it from a point of being intellectuals.
While I’m relatively intelligent, I come at most things from a more visceral place.
So if a kid is inspired to give up meat because of Bambi, or someone is led to God and/or doing Mitzvot (good deeds) everyday because they were inspired by a sunset or a cartoon, does it matter?
I think if most of us had to be able to defend our beliefs, particularly our religious beliefs in a court of law, we’d be sent to psychiatric hospitals.
You and Slarti are probably right in that the root of this argument is the division in personality types. I suppose in looking at it that way I can see where some folks find it a useful way to view the world.
I guess that in my INTJ mind, though, I still can’t fathom doing so for myself.
I agree with you completely about political decisions/arguments and fiction. OTOH, good fiction (i.e. fiction in which the characters act in believable ways that the reader recognizes as being human) can be a pretty decent guide in making certain personal decisions. Poetry I’m not so sure about.