Assertions and Arguments

Most people when it comes to conflict may be divided into two categories: the conflict-seeking, and the conflict-adverse. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. A person who is naturally pugnacious can be a good person to take the “bull by the horns” to have necessary discussions or even disagreements which can result in greater clarity and growth. They can also be difficult to live and work with. A naturally peaceable person can be a natural mediator, someone who knows how to deescalate a tense situation. However, this unwillingness to fight can paradoxically create more conflict with the passing of time, because key problems are not addressed, but instead are papered over until it is too late. As what was once called common sense reminds us, in media stat virtus; virtue is the mean between two extremes. Excesses or defects of certain traits are what we call vices. The ‘middle’ habit we call virtues.

The modern world is replete with examples of how our culture, which has increasingly abandoned a moral discourse based upon virtues, increasingly slips into incoherence upon the shifting sand of false absolutes, such as tolerance, equality, inclusivity, and other ‘values’ which are by their very nature relative. Corruption of language, as Orwell noted in 1984, is another avenue for this intellectual rot. Once a critical mass of people can no longer think or act in accord with reason, the society by and large becomes, not even immoral, but amoral: we no longer deal with the sins and crimes of knowingly malicious people, but with the incoherence and ignorance of mere beasts. Most theologians and philosophers have believed that it is impossible for a person to have invincible ignorance of at least the Natural Law. However, I am not so sure that with the corruption of morals and the ubiquity of modern forms of communication, that is far more possible today than perhaps ever to insidiously twist the moral sensibility of billions of people.

One of the ways in which this corruption of language is increasingly evident is the proliferation of assertions to take the place of arguments. Just take the marketing ‘industry’ for one example. In the mid-20th century, a marked shift had begun to occur from rational and appetitive advertising to more purely appetitive advertising. Consider a 1950s printed or broadcast ad for laundry detergent, for example. Sure, marketers knew how to adroitly utilize standard roles in the nuclear family to appeal to both men and women. But they also appealed to the practical intellect: could a detergent perform its function, which is to clean clothes? Was it better than other brands? Was it more affordable? Was it easier to use?

Although advertising in this way has greatly diminished, but has not disappeared, the approach of marketing has expanded into almost every conceivable profession, from corporate board rooms to chanceries. Many businesses and non-profits have spent a considerable amount of money seeking the advice of marketers: even running an informational website like this one, my inbox constantly receives suggestions about how I can increase my visibility and my revenue, which is the bread and butter of the marketer’s craft. Yet I believe marketing is swiftly becoming the victim of its own success, much like many other trends in history. The problem with marketing is that in its essence it is reductionist and behaviorist, shrinking down almost all human behavior to mercantile or economic behavior. When this reductionism is also wedded to a pre-existing materialism, human persons, and all their private and public preferences, are free game to be commercialized and exploited. Homo economicus is supposedly the apotheosis of the man of late capitalist society. But like all historical übermenschen, the image of man which is summoned is more a devil or a beast than a god.

Contemporary news media, because it is now primarily a mercantile or business venture with only the veneer of information sharing, is now becoming increasingly unreliable and untrustworthy, and is unlikely to change, as long as the primary motivation for their existence, and their metaphysical commitments, remain set on money and materialism. Social Media brings this problem to a whole new level, because, now armed with the collecting and synthesizing power of metadata analysis, they can weaponize our own worst traits against us, mostly for financial gain. We don’t need a dystopian ‘panopticon’ to survey all our activity. We are individually, and voluntarily, doing so.

Which brings us to political discourse. Politicians, like most people with a message or narrative to promote, know that it is far easier to share a point of view with others if it is catchy and appeals to people’s sensibilities. This is true both in the Senate Floor and in the Priest’s Pulpit. Aristotle of course in his discussion of rhetoric famously described effective speech as that which has logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos may be interpreted here as ‘rationality’ or ‘reasonability’, which is to say that a speech is rationally compelling. Ethos refers to the moral or technical authority of the speaker, hence why almost every actor on a prescription medicine commercial features a paid actor in a lab coat. Pathos is the emotive power of the speech, which may also be understood to be its appeal to all the appetitive aspects of the person, from food and anger, to fear and sex.

One powerful and very current example of all three of these was (and perhaps still is) the rhetoric surrounding the coronavirus epidemic, especially in spring of 2020. There was precious little logos in the discussion, since we knew so little about the virus. We knew a decent amount about respiratory illnesses in general, and how they are spread and evolve, and this general knowledge largely dictated our approach. Yet there was a huge amount of pathos and ethos, and these were exploited to maximal effect; ostensibly, to get public support behind epidemic mitigation efforts, such as social distancing and masked wearing. Politicians paraded doctors around like they were demigods, quasi-omniscient, beneficent saviors who had the professional authority to inform the public regarding how to behave in regard to a contagion which they in fact knew very little about. People trusted them because of their professional credentials, and because of the powerful motivator of fear, especially fear of the unknown.

This problem also has severely damaged the public image of the Church, when teaching as work of the Church, especially as done in preaching, has become reduced to marketing in some places. It seems self evident that preaching ought to be winsome and convincing, since the objective is the conversion, instruction and inspiration of the listeners. However, if this is attempted by means of platitude instead of quality content, the effect may be like soft candy: sweet, but not nourishing to the needs of the soul. When the platitude is matched with a marketing reference frame for communication, one has arrived at the worst possible end: a fool’s gold, a message which seems good but is in fact vacuous. For a platitude is essentially an assertion which is made axiomatic; for instance, “Only the good die young”, or “God helps those who help themselves”. Neither of those statements are completely true, but they are said as if they were. In the same vein, statements like “We value equality” or “Our nation is systemically racist” are assertions which are made, not as premises for an argument, but instead as articles of a creed.

People make assertions all the time, mostly based on experience. “It is hot outside” or “it is cold in this room” are two easy examples. These are pretty innocent, even though they are somewhat subjective. Yet when people make assertions such as “all cops are pigs” or “all Priests are child molesters”, these are assertions which are errors where logos is critically lacking, and that doesn’t matter whether the ethos or pathos are present: the one making such statements may be a highly educated doctor or a head of state. They may be moving the public toward anger or fear: but they remain in error. The ability to make effective arguments, to present evidence, to draw conclusions and to even think inductively (so necessary for practical affairs) are being more and more curtailed by the proliferation of ideologies, driven by the ‘edutainment’ complex, which largely divest people of these crucial skills.

With such a deluge of information and disinformation, people are growing increasingly impatient with lengthy articles and talks, especially Millennials. While such ‘information fatigue’ is understandable, it forebodes something darker. Meanwhile, assertions are shot like bullets through the fabric of society, unable to be absorbed properly by the minds of people. And since these assertions, and an ‘assertion based culture’ are based more in passion and in facile reasoning than in fact and true argumentation, they create a truly poisonous environment for people to communicate. I would love to be a meta-analysis of the frequency of some of the following words on the internet today: “therefore”, “consequently”, “however”, “notwithstanding”, and others which indicate a line of reasoning which flows from premises to conclusion. I know that some college graduates today have been told that using such words comes across as elitist or overly formal, but I would reply that if such language seems elitist, it is only because their thought and verbiage is truly elite (at least compared to their peers). We have a common task in utilizing and expecting better bang for our buck, intellectually. One of the best ways to remedy this lack is by asking good questions. Yet of course, for those who wish to obfuscate and deceive, intelligent questions, and those who ask them, are a threat. This is where the need for courage comes. This is why even Jordan Peterson’s 2018 interview on Channel 4 (UK) still has over 30 million views, and there several well written or recorded analyses on the difference between these two people who think either via assertion (the interviewer) or argumentation (the interviewee, Jordan Peterson). Patience too is necessary here, in its fullest sense. While there are few things more frustrating than a proud fool, if the wise fail to speak, we become more impoverished intellectually and spiritually. Especially if we take seriously Christ’s command to “teach all nations”, what can be done if people have become incapable of learning? Today, education may be our generation’s true and universal praeparatio evangelica.