Summary

The article argues that true philosophy should clarify relationships between ideas and avoid sophistry, which relies on false premises and logical fallacies to win arguments.

Abstract

The article critiques modern philosophy for often being more about clever wordplay and obscure terminology than genuine understanding. It emphasizes that good philosophy should elucidate the connections between ideas and their implications for our actions. The author warns against sophistry, which uses persuasive but flawed arguments to deceive, noting that this undermines critical thinking and sets a low standard for discourse. The article calls for a return to philosophy that focuses on the strength of relationships between argumentative components, likening it to the structural integrity required in building a house. It suggests that practicing critical thinking is essential in an increasingly complex world and provides a resource for honing one's "BS detector." The author concludes by advocating for better philosophical practices and highlights the importance of critical thinking skills in modern society.

Opinions

Modern philosophical writings are criticized for being more about impressing with complexity than providing clarity.
Philosophy should serve to illustrate how ideas relate to each other and to our actions, rather than obfuscate with jargon.
The use of false premises in arguments is seen as a form of sophistry that can mislead and prevent genuine understanding.
Overreliance on logical tricks can erode our ability to discern between strong and weak arguments, diminishing critical thinking skills.
The author believes that the art of living becomes more challenging as civilization progresses, necessitating robust critical thinking skills.
There is a call to action for individuals to practice thinking critically and to resist the temptation of falling for persuasive but fallacious arguments.
The article suggests that the current state of philosophy is lacking and that there is a need to return to more substantive philosophical inquiry.

There Are Two Ways to Win an Argument — Only One Is Worth Trying

Shortcuts are rarely worth it

Most philosophy today isn’t philosophy.

When you read modern philosophical stuff it seems impressive, what with all its clever twists, turns, and big words.

But look just a little closer, give it more than 8 seconds of your time and you find that it’s not impressive.

It’s just a trick.

Philosophy should show relationships

Good philosophy — the understandable kind — demonstrates how things relate to each other, how ideas connect to each other. It shows the ways we relate to ideas and finally, what we should do about it all.

Read any formal philosophical work written in the last hundred years and you’ll find it chock full of terms only dedicated philosophy students understand. Every new sentence presents a new “-ism”, and you need Google to figure it out.

Unfortunately, 20th-century philosophers aren’t the first to do this, and they won’t be the last.

When I read work like this, I can’t help but think of Nietzsche.

“They muddy the water, to make it seem deep”.

All this mud stirring blocks philosophy’s real purpose: illustrating relationships. However, there’s more than one way to stir up mud.

A way to cheat with logic

There are many tribes in the world; religious ones, political ones, and cultural ones. Each has its own approach to explaining how things relate, and also tricking you into believing what they’re saying.

Here’s a very common argument for tricking people. If we use a three-piece form the structure looks like this:

True premise
False premise
False conclusion

And here’s a classic example.

The history of all society is the history of resource struggles.
Give everyone equal resources and it will end struggles.
Therefore we should implement an equality scheme so it will end all our struggles.

Premise Two seems true. At a minimum, we want it to be true. That’s one of the appealing things about a false premise. We so desperately want it to be true we’re willing to overlook its problems.

However, will giving everyone equal material resources solve all our struggles?

What about non-material struggles, like finding someone who will love and accept you. Will it solve that? Of course not. But like Hemmingway so adroitly observed, “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

There’s an ancient word for philosophy like this: sophistry. Sophists presented arguments that were clever but fallacious.

They were a plague in ancient Greece. And they still are.

Cheaters never win

The great danger of these logical tricks is that they steal our ability to discern solid arguments from weak ones.

Over time, they become the de facto standard of acceptable levels of thinking. Strong, well-supported arguments are no longer required, or even considered. In short, we lose the ability to think critically.

Getting good at thinking takes practice, just like getting good at playing an instrument, or driving a car, or cooking or making money.

If we stop practicing, if we let ourselves cheat and lose the skill of thinking critically about simple things, like a three-line argument, how will we ever solve the very big, very important problems that life inevitably throws our way?

How to do better philosophy

In short, getting better at philosophy means practicing thinking. That starts with looking at arguments and proposals to see if their parts have strong relationships.

Just like the parts of a house must connect strongly to each other to make the house sturdy, parts of a proposal must connect in a strong way to support the final conclusion.

It takes time to develop this skill, but in this day age, it’s crucial. And if you grew up in the US, chances are a million-to-one you didn’t learn this skill in school.

Here’s a good place to start: How to Fine-Tune Your BS Detector

We need to practice better philosophy. What we have today sucks.

The more complex civilization becomes, the more difficult will become the art of living. — Urantia Book, 160:1.3