2 / N
In a previous thread on the Paradox of Tolerance, Tony Lower-Basch asked about bad faith arguments.
My answer has gotten long, and deserves it's own post.
Here we go:
1. From Sarte and Simone de Beauvoir, Bad Faith describes the state in which human beings disavow their own freedom and act inauthentically.
What the crap does that mean? What does it have to do with internet arguments?
Without taking everyone down the path of the Existentialists: to act in bad faith is to not act in accordance with the Project of being you. Sarte uses the example of a waiter who is too much of a waiter, and has disavowed the project of being himself.
In this regard, the project is seeking truth. To participate in bad faith is to not be seeking truth. To argue in bad faith is to enter into such a debate without the goal of seeking truth.
This can be authentic to the project of you, but it is not authentic to the project of debate. By participating in the argument, we tacitly agree to seek truth.
2. Bad Faith and Devil's Advocate are different things. A devil's advocate is there to strengthen positions and get closer to truth. They are acting authentically to this project, when it is done correctly. To find holes in our arguments is a duty that is often assigned to the smart people
Especially in this collection, I ask people to find holes in arguments. To tell me where I am wrong. To help us get closer to truth.
But, here's the thing: Self-Appointed Devil's advocacy is a red flag, and often a sign of bad faith. In this case, the self-appointed devil's advocate does not care about seeking truth, but about preventing an interlocutor from having the energy to do anything but defend.
3. Where that leaves us: Arguing in bad faith is to not engage in the agreed-upon project of seeking truth. This is related to but distinct from what Sarte and de Bouvier mean by bad faith, as they are referring to not engaging in the project of being you. This is also different from a true devil's advocate, who is a necessary component of seeking truth.
That's about where I am. This got long.
Comments / thoughts /. questions / concerns are all welcome. Have I misunderstood / remembered the Existentialists? Do I not know how debate works? You tell me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you put "Tactically" where you wanted "Tacitly"?
ReplyDeleteCorrected. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThere -> their.
ReplyDeleteStrength -> strengthen
ReplyDeleteSolved. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis is good. What it's (maybe) missing is some explanation of its underlying assumption, which seems to be that the purpose (or a main purpose) of argument is to seek truth; or perhaps to seek a compromise expression that somehow includes opposing views in just proportion, approximating truth. That is: this is an inclusive vision.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative worldview says that the main purpose of argument is to defeat opposing arguments, or (more tooth-and-clawy) defeat those who advance opposing arguments. An exclusive vision.
Tell me more about your question, John Jainschigg
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm wondering when someone who assumes the purpose of argument is to win can understand the definition of "arguing in bad faith," as written above.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat taking the Devil's Advocate position, but trying to act in good faith...
ReplyDeleteSartre and de Beauvoir were more interested in Freedom than Truth. So I'm not sure they would agree that good faith Internet arguments must have the goal of seeking Truth. But I'm damned if I can think of another good faith goal for arguing with someone.
It's an interesting exercise to replace the word "waiter" with "liberal," "conservative," "communist," "authoritarian," "constitutionalist," "progressive," or whatever you consider yourself to be. Am I "too much" a liberal? Maybe, yes, when I refuse to listen to conservative arguments or dismiss them out of hand. But if I start incorporating those arguments into my own belief system, am I then "too much" a centrist? Or if they push me further to the left, am I "too much" a communist? If I allow myself to be swayed by someone else's argument, have I ceded control of the project of me?
Our identities have become so intertwined with our politics, I think most existentialists would say we (21st century Americans) are all "too much" whatever we are. On the other hand, the existentialists were very political. So I'm not sure.
...and the existentialists would probably laugh their collective asses off at me making an argument from authority with the existentialists as the authority. "What would Sartre say?" is not something Sartre would say. Sartre would say, "Choose. Because not choosing is also a choice. And pretending you have no choice is the most bad faith thing you can do."
Agree: Sarte and Simone de Beauvoir were a weird ramp. I'll see what I can do. Look to a 3 / N post.
ReplyDelete