Our Post-Argument Politics
It is said by much of Western high culture that we live in a ‘post-truth’ era, meaning that although there is widespread total accessibility to the truth through the internet, it is often seen that people instead absorb and repeat falsehoods and misinformation. It is as though a facsimile of Gresham’s Law holds true in political discourse: just as the original law states that in an economy, bad money drives out good, in dialogue, falsehood increasingly drives out truth. However, I would like to propose a different pathogen, one that is equally infecting and devastating our collective discourse – that pathogen is the Post-Argument mindset present in modern conversation.
Engaging in a meaningful argument requires a considerable number of prerequisites on both sides, with the most important of these being an agreement that rationality, rather than dogma, should be the propelling force behind an argument’s truth. This sees in the other a rationality that is fundamentally like our own sense of reason, and that through conversation, we can aim towards developing a more comprehensive vision of what is true, and to discard what is false. This is fundamental to a debate as it understands the other as having the rational and free-minded nature as to make the debate worthwhile. It assumes that the other has some resemblance of reason at the heart of their argument, regardless of how tortured or misguided they are; thus making it possible to establish a result in the credible system of logic and reason.
The Post-Argument mindset looks to undermine this prerequisite of debate, through attacking the freedom and rationality of the other. This is usually done through pathologizing the other as having some hidden motivation, that renders them nothing more than an unknowing puppet with invisible strings. This ends the purpose of the argument, as the only thing that is being advanced is not the pursuit of truth, but instead the insidious hidden will of the ‘puppet master’. This facilitates the mindset of: it is only me, the enlightened holder of this mindset, who can decipher and uncover this secret mastermind and thus expose my opponent as being nothing more than an automaton. As I have exposed this reality for all to see, I must therefore have a more complete and comprehensive view of society and its true nature. As Roger Scruton put it “it is as if it were a weapon, though brandished in front of the opponent, finds itself thrust into their back.”
There is no denying these claims of the ethereal strings, as denial is just more evidence of their existence and the cunning of the puppet master wishing to conceal itself; we are ensnared in a beautiful catch-22 trap. It is as if when answering ‘No’ to the question ‘Are you a member of the Illuminati?’ I was to reply, “Well, that is what a member of the Illuminati would say, isn’t it.” The lack of falsifiability of this notion does nothing to prove the truth of the theory, instead it sets up the preferred theology that looks to see beyond the argument, and therefore beyond the individual person arguing, and into the “real” and “hidden” motivations that exist in this absurd, unreal state.
Karl Marx is the most bountiful source of this mindset in the contemporary world, as seeing the world through the lens of Marxian dialectic and social criticism, one is at once handed the weapon to thrust into the backs of logical debate or argument. Your opponent is simply a proponent of ‘bourgeois ideology’ and a ‘reactionary,’ you are a socialist and thus can see the ethereal strings being pulled by the capitalist system, that make your opponent resist the inevitable and righteous workers revolution, and the communist utopia that is sure to follow. Marx proposed his theory as a science (truth-seeking/preserving), as opposed to bourgeois thought which only ideology (power-seeking/preserving). But how is Marxism a science? Marxism is a science because it exposes bourgeois ideology, but we know that it is ideology through use of Marxist ‘science’ and thus, we have entered an argumentative circle. Marxism undermines its opponent through simply explaining away their entire existence and treating its founding text as holy, therefore incontrovertible, scripture. Althusser, a Marxist ‘philosopher,’ says that Marx’s Capital can only be understood once its axioms are adopted, and thus if you criticise Marxism, you simply do not understand Marxism, and if you understand Marxism, you know that Marx is right. There is nothing left to the reader to choose other than this vision, as it takes for itself the mantle of ultimate truth, and thus must jettison all other perspectives through explaining them away.
This requirement to look beyond the argument is, of course, not unique to the far-Left or socialism, with many religiously-inspired claims also taking this non-committal relationship with seeking truth, however, it is much less prevalent in Britain, as it is a largely secular/non-religious country, so I do not feel the need to speak of it here.
If you have tried a rational conversation in recent years, you can agree that once adopted at a societal level, these ideologies/theologies make discourse impossible with everyone involved that believes themselves to hold the absolute truth, and the piercing lens to see beyond the need for intellectual and rational discourse. Dialogue becomes an endless pushing against each other of unrelenting, unfalsifiable theories where everything is claimed and explained, but nothing is ever improved or even understood. We must return and affirm the prerequisites of any rational dialogue and discourse if we ever want to hear any rational conversations at a macro-level, and to get back to aligning with truth over theory.
