I think you summarize the problem with "theater has replaced thinking." That was entirely evident when fellow members of clergy told me over and over how knowledgeable Charlie Kirk was. They did not understand the argument or the theater so they ate at the trough of it.
Come on, Aaron. How are we supposed to monetize thinking if it’s “the slow labor of social existence in light of our moral responsibilities to each other”? And if we teach everyone to think, how are we supposed to emotionally manipulate the masses?
The good part of debate not captured enough in this post is the facilitation--ensuring a return or reframe to a point outside the speaker's own head (hopefully in the audience's mind), ensuring roughly equal time, ensuring norms and limits for the discourse. Unstructured conversation so often heightens identity and stylistics (this feels good to listen to because it 'sounds like' me, or sounds like terms I'm used to in my expertise) to the exclusion of truth-directed discourse. The fact that academic and political "debates" are too PR-ified is a larger cultural problem, not one of debate (as facilitated discourse) itself.
That’s an important qualification. And I deeply appreciate it. You are absolutely right! Yes, that’s at least part of what I was trying to highlight by suggesting that the very formal ones in virtuous ways like shown on the movie do allow facilitation to be something of a philosophical narrator to ensure that the deliberative virtues be continuously and play. That said, when those facilitators tend to become just media personalities who are themselves really just one step up from influencers who are all seeking the soundbite and ratings rather than truth, I think the façade of facilitation might actually be worse than not having it at all.
I really appreciate this deep dive into the concept of "debates". Some people argue to win and some people argue to learn. When passion turns conversation into winning, it becomes a sport which seems to be the blueprint for our politics. Sports now seems to be only about winning and the ideals of building character and "fair play" via sports for the most part has severely faded. If my team (democrats, republicans) wins because I have the most money, the most power, receive the most attention, then Plato understood how this happens. It will take a major disruption to change this cultural value.
I think you summarize the problem with "theater has replaced thinking." That was entirely evident when fellow members of clergy told me over and over how knowledgeable Charlie Kirk was. They did not understand the argument or the theater so they ate at the trough of it.
That’s right!!! I had Kirk in mind for this whole post but was trying not to single him out because then the polarization machine kicks back in. Ugh.
Come on, Aaron. How are we supposed to monetize thinking if it’s “the slow labor of social existence in light of our moral responsibilities to each other”? And if we teach everyone to think, how are we supposed to emotionally manipulate the masses?
Ooof. Well there’s that!
You know me, always looking out for the capitalists. Profit doesn’t produce itself!
The good part of debate not captured enough in this post is the facilitation--ensuring a return or reframe to a point outside the speaker's own head (hopefully in the audience's mind), ensuring roughly equal time, ensuring norms and limits for the discourse. Unstructured conversation so often heightens identity and stylistics (this feels good to listen to because it 'sounds like' me, or sounds like terms I'm used to in my expertise) to the exclusion of truth-directed discourse. The fact that academic and political "debates" are too PR-ified is a larger cultural problem, not one of debate (as facilitated discourse) itself.
That’s an important qualification. And I deeply appreciate it. You are absolutely right! Yes, that’s at least part of what I was trying to highlight by suggesting that the very formal ones in virtuous ways like shown on the movie do allow facilitation to be something of a philosophical narrator to ensure that the deliberative virtues be continuously and play. That said, when those facilitators tend to become just media personalities who are themselves really just one step up from influencers who are all seeking the soundbite and ratings rather than truth, I think the façade of facilitation might actually be worse than not having it at all.
I really appreciate this deep dive into the concept of "debates". Some people argue to win and some people argue to learn. When passion turns conversation into winning, it becomes a sport which seems to be the blueprint for our politics. Sports now seems to be only about winning and the ideals of building character and "fair play" via sports for the most part has severely faded. If my team (democrats, republicans) wins because I have the most money, the most power, receive the most attention, then Plato understood how this happens. It will take a major disruption to change this cultural value.