Argument as Transparency

Leontiskos

Introduction

A mother walks into the kitchen and is surprised to find her children hard at work. The cupboards are ajar, the mixing bowls and measuring cups are scattered across the countertop, and flour, butter, sugar, and eggs have all found their way out into the open. “What are you doing!?” she asks. The children, giggling, reply coyly, “Kneading dough!” “No! What are you doing?” After a brief pause they announce merrily, “We are baking cookies!”

What if the mother, finding herself on a philosophy forum, asked the same question? “What are you doing!?” “Arguing!” “No! What are you doing?” *

I hope the answer would have something to do with truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. We knead dough to bake cookies and we argue to get at these sorts of things. But a philosophy forum involves dialogue, and hence what is involved is a shared pursuit of things like truth, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. In this thread I am concerned with a key component of this shared pursuit: transparency, and in particular transparency as an essential part of good argument.

Transparency in Argument

There are two basic ways that an argument can get at truth^✝: by being right and by being wrong. Yet in order for this to work the argument must be seen to be right or wrong. If it is seen to be right then it will lead the one who sees it into the truth of its conclusion. If it is seen to be wrong then it will lead the one who sees it away from specious reasoning and away from an unsound conclusion. In each case the crucial factor is that it be seen, that it be transparent.

This telos of truth can be impeded in various ways. One such temptation is eristic, the practice of mere disputation and winning an argument simply for the sake of winning. A more subtle temptation is rhetorical excess, where one focuses so strongly on persuasion that they end up neglecting truth in the process. A third and very common temptation is captured by Aaron Burr’s line in Lin Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton, “Talk less, smile more. Don’t let them know what you’re against or what you’re for.” Whether it is silence, sheepishness, or dissimulation, this is rooted in the fear of being criticized or being wrong. All of these temptations are aided by arguments which are opaque and difficult to discern. Transparency is a useful remedy.

Transparency in need of Courage

Transparent arguments require a certain amount of courage. Everyone knows that a clear and transparent argument is better at getting the job done. If an argument is transparent, illuminating, and sound, then it will also be cogent and will carry the interlocutor along to the destination. On the other hand, if an argument is unsound then transparency will only make it easier to see that it is wrong, and no one likes to be wrong. So transparency is a double-edged sword, much like transparent clothing that makes attractive people more attractive and unattractive people more unattractive.

If the proper telos of truth is maintained, then the courage for transparent arguments will be ready to hand. This is because the risk of being wrong will be easily undertaken for a higher cause. As noted above, a pathway to truth is opened up when bad arguments are seen to be bad. Disguising or veiling arguments is a bit like going to the doctor and lying about one’s health in order to avoid an unpleasant diagnosis. It defeats the whole point. Arguments don’t exist to make us feel good about ourselves; they exist to help us pursue truth, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. It is worth paying the price of vulnerability for the sake of truth.

Example: Assertions vs. Arguments

One very basic and concrete way towards transparency is replacing assertions with arguments, especially when an assertion has been questioned or has become contentious. Even simple syllogisms can make a difference.

Consider the assertion, “David Hume was a nut.” This provides nothing for the interlocutor to grab on to, and the only available options are affirmation or denial. There is no path to truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. But a simple syllogism alters the landscape, “David Hume undermined the scientific enterprise; Anyone who undermines the scientific enterprise is a nut; Therefore David Hume was a nut.” The transition from the assertion to the argument makes the reasoning and rationale visible. Other paths have been opened up beyond mere affirmation or denial. The interlocutor could become convinced, they could question premises or inferences, the person giving the argument might realize that they are mistaken, etc.

It is perhaps worth noting that the formalization of an argument can sometimes help transparency, but it can sometimes hinder transparency. The goal of transparency must be held in mind during the formalization process, but also, the capacity of one’s interlocutor must be taken into account when deciding whether and how to formalize an argument.^☨

To revise Burr’s line, “Talk more. Let them know what you’re against and what you’re for.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This question is an inquiry into what Aristotle calls a final cause.
^✝ “Truth” will henceforth be used as a shortened version of “Truth, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.”
^☨ There are perhaps cases where one wishes to restrict access to an argument to those with a certain level of aptitude. A tricky balance is at play in such a maneuver, but it should be stressed that the argument should still be transparent to those with the desired aptitude.

Reveal

Addendum

I drafted a different version of this thread a few weeks ago, and I wanted to include the two central paragraphs in a sort of postscript. They may help elucidate one thing or another:

It seems to me that the proximate telos of argument qua dialogue is a kind of transparency, namely that transparency by which the reasons and grounds for our position or conclusion become clear to our interlocutor. When we set out an argument we are attempting to show our interlocutor, first, why a conclusion is true, and second, either why we hold to it or why they should hold to it (or both). If a claim or an assertion is a black box, then an argument is the revealing and making-known of the contents of that box. Some arguments unravel our own reasons for a conclusion or postulate, while others are tailored to the specific characteristics of our interlocutor, but in each case transparency is the first thing aimed at. The more proper (remote) telos is of course the telos of rational dialogue: coming to better know truth.

There are two important effects of this transparency. The primary effect is to provide an occasion for another mind to assent to what is true, via the argument we have set out. An argument provides another person with a concrete path to the truth of our claim, if indeed it be true. The second effect is equally important for dialogue, and it is the making vulnerable of our position. The path that we open up for the sake of truth turns out to be a two-way highway, suitable not only for assent but also for denial, critique, and even assault. The transparency of an argument, then, brings with it both an invitation and a risk. Both paths serve truth, the telos of rational dialogue; the first by providing an opportunity to assent to what is true, and the second by providing an opportunity to deny what is false.

NotAristotle

Transparency is important in argumentation because it leads to truth and is an example of the virtue of courage.

NotAristotle

Additionally, transparent argumentation makes for a more productive argument because one's views will be more clearly presented and because the actual beliefs of the individuals will be honestly assessed.

Moliere

↪Leontiskos

Good stuff.

I especially like the connection between vulnerability and transparency: forthrightness can be a boast, but if you're really at your limit of certainty then it's a good idea to let go of the desire for certainty -- especialy the certainty that you'll win the argument ;).

Transparency, though, is a way to subject yourself to the criticism of philosophy.

Leontiskos

Good stuff.

I especially like the connection between vulnerability and transparency: forthrightness can be a boast, but if you're really at your limit of certainty then it's a good idea to let go of the desire for certainty — Moliere

Thanks! Yes, I very much agree with this as well. Last year I wrote a thread on this topic on a different forum, "The Philosophical Virtue of Certitude Shifting." I hadn't thought about the way it is related to transparency until you brought it up.

I think some of these points seem obvious, and they probably are obvious, but at least for me it is helpful to have reminders from time to time.

Transparency, though, is a way to subject yourself to the criticism of philosophy. — Moliere

Yep, and I also think of it as a means to the common good of truth, knowledge, wisdom, etc. When there is transparency there is a better chance that everyone involved will enjoy these benefits.

---

Transparency is important in argumentation because it leads to truth and is an example of the virtue of courage. — NotAristotle

Additionally, transparent argumentation makes for a more productive argument because one's views will be more clearly presented and because the actual beliefs of the individuals will be honestly assessed. — NotAristotle

Yes, that's just how I would put it @NotAristotle. :up:

Hailey

Thank you for what you brought us there, very thought-provoking. It reminds me of a speech Chimamanda Ngozi Aldichie gave, the Freedom of Speech, in the Reith Lecture, where she stressed the importance of allowing ourselves to say something wrong and warned people of the danger of self-censorship. Apart from arguing that people, especially youngsters should engage more in conversations, she also pointed out the damage that cancel culture would do to the society, which would all impair transparency of arguments and hinder the freedom of speech. To seek truth, we should avoid getting emotional and argue for the sake of persuading the other side, instead, we should be open-minded and unbiased and use logic to fully dissect the issue at hand, where neither concealing our own ignorance nor keeping silent to avoid conflicts would do anything good.

Jack Cummins

↪Leontiskos

Transparency in arguments is important in seeking the rational explanations and justifications. It involves honesty about the basis for acceptance of ideas and goes far beyond winning arguments.

Perhaps, the need to win an argument stems from uncertainty about one's own position and the need for validation from others. This involves the transparency with oneself as opposed to self deception. It is possible to hold a view and not be aware why one adopts it. Some ideas may accepted from others unquestioningly and there may also be psychological factors involved.

A certain amount of transparency with oneself may be beneficial and it may not that once this achieved there may be less need to argue one's position. However, ongoing interaction, such as on a philosophy forum, may be useful for fluidity in thinking and ongoing modification of ideas in the light of new perspectives and development of knowledge.

NotAristotle

It is possible to hold a view and not be aware why one adopts it. Some ideas may accepted from others unquestioningly and there may also be psychological factors involved. — Jack Cummins

That being the case, I don't necessarily think someone should be criticized for not being able to articulate their view well. Like you said, understanding is a part of philosophy, and so the virtue of patience with oneself and others is also important.

Jack Cummins

↪NotAristotle

It may be that philosophy itself is the art of being able to articulate one's views. Patience with oneself is important but I find a certain amount of self criticism useful in seeing the gaps in my own logic and leaning towards certain ideas. A certain amount of rigour in being able to analyse one's own thinking may enable transparency of oneself and being able to realise and go beyond one's own philosophical blindspots.

Leontiskos

It is true that some views are held uncritically or unreflectively, but oftentimes the most interesting philosophy occurs precisely at the point when these views come under question:

One very basic and concrete way towards transparency is replacing assertions with arguments, especially when an assertion has been questioned or has become contentious. — Leontiskos

So I think @Jack Cummins makes a good point when he talks about "going beyond one's philosophical blindspots."

We all have certain views that we suppose do not need justification (and often they may not need justification). But the crucial thing is the ability to pivot and justify these views when they come into question.

NotAristotle

Humility is another virtue of the philosopher. It's important to acknowledge, at least to oneself, when one's own views are contradictory or inconsistent. Relatedly, the philosopher must persevere in their quest for truth.

Leontiskos

It reminds me of a speech Chimamanda Ngozi Aldichie gave, the Freedom of Speech, in the Reith Lecture, where she stressed the importance of allowing ourselves to say something wrong and warned people of the danger of self-censorship. — Hailey

This sounds interesting. I found a link to it <here>. I will have to check it out when I get a chance.

Apart from arguing that people, especially youngsters should engage more in conversations, she also pointed out the damage that cancel culture would do to the society, which would all impair transparency of arguments and hinder the freedom of speech. — Hailey

Exactly. :up:

...neither concealing our own ignorance nor keeping silent to avoid conflicts would do anything good. — Hailey

Right. Perhaps social media has raised vanity to such a pitch that it has become exceptionally difficult to overcome. We are often more concerned with how others will react and view us than with whether our contribution will further the conversation.

Leontiskos

A certain amount of transparency with oneself may be beneficial and it may not that once this achieved there may be less need to argue one's position. However, ongoing interaction, such as on a philosophy forum, may be useful for fluidity in thinking and ongoing modification of ideas in the light of new perspectives and development of knowledge. — Jack Cummins

Yes, there is something interesting about philosophy as fulfilling a need versus philosophy as abundance or overflow, and the various shades of both. Argument and philosophical dialogue can be a crutch; it can be a response to a legitimate need for investigation and intercourse; it can be a genuine and unselfish sharing; and sometimes it can even be the consequence of an overflow of our grasped participation in the intelligibility of creation.

(This is my first post – thanks for welcoming me to the forum!)

Reading this thread, I was reminded of an insight from Richard J. Bernstein in his essay, “The Rage Against Reason” (collected in The New Constellation, 1992). Bernstein notes some similarities between modernist philosopher Jurgen Habermas and the American pragmatists. He writes, “Both [Habermas and the pragmatists] share an understanding of rationality as instrinsically dialogical and communicative. And both pursue the ethical and political consequences of this form of rationality and rationalization. It was Peirce who first developed the logical backbone of this thought in his idea of the fundamental character of a self-corrective critical community of inquirers [my itals] without any absolute beginning points or finalities. . .”

Bernstein has a lot more that’s interesting to say about the connection of rational inquiry with democratic values. But for our purposes, I think what he’s describing is quite close to this concept of transparency and philosophical humility. What is often challenging, of course, is to take seriously the idea that such inquiry might truly be “without any absolute beginning points or finalities.” But that’s another subject.

Argument as Transparency

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions