Explanation of the assignment Dialectic is a term that covers a number of different methods of reasoning. The most famous of these, historically, have been Socratic dialectic and Hegelian dialectic. However, Socrates use of dialectic was based on already existing practices. Specifically, he primarily uses forensic dialectic (the kind of reasoning commonly found in law courts and legal speech and documents), which is used for discovery, establishing facts, and making assertions or charges (cataphasis). However, as we will see, while in a law court, a lawyer seeks to establish innocence or guilt, Socrates establishes…nothing! This is part of the famous Socratic irony: he uses the form and functions of traditional forensic dialectic in order to subvert its purposes – to mess with people, to free display to them their own ignorance, and force them into a position of responsibility for correcting their ignorance. In other words, he was not going to let people get away with being irresponsible in their use of reason. Everyone uses dialectical reasoning everyday – except, perhaps, for the essential element of dialectic, that which makes philosophical dialectic what it is: attention. That is, we use dialectical reasoning without being aware of it as dialectical reasoning. However, when we pay attention to how we reason, we discover that we are often reasoning dialectically – and therefore, we can improve our reasoning, if we want. By paying attention to how we reason, and learning about the various techniques of dialectic, we can get better at reasoning. This is part of a philosophical practice that I usually refer to as “Who’s in charge of your brain? You? Or your brain?” Descartes was a master dialectician. In fact, his “meditative” technique is a kind of dialectical discussion that he has with himself. He raises a problem, and attempts a solution to it; then, he analyzes his solution, notes the problem with the solution, and attempts to find a more sufficient solution. He takes account of different explanations, and he tries them out, and if they work, he proceeds – and if not, he will take a step back and try again. (Please note the physical metaphors that I am using to describe Descartes’ thinking. Much of our mental furniture is made up of such physical metaphors.) Assignment 1. Read MacIntyre, After Ethics, pp. 24-27. 2. Using one of MacIntyre’s arguments, or creating your own, briefly state your own position. For example, you might agree with the position that a war is just when the outcomes are better than the alternatives to war. You may also state two or three supporting reasons for your position. For example, since genocide is a great evil, then a war to prevent genocide would be justified. (Note: for the exercise to work as designed, this needs to be an argument that you personally agree with.) 3. State the argument opposite to the argument you have stated in 2. This is the “devil’s advocate” position. See if you can come up with strong arguments in support of this position. When you are doing this, if you personally agree with the argument in 2., notice how stressful it is to support the argument in 3. Notice the internal conflict that results, including anxiousness and even anger. The conflicts that arise between 2. and 3. are one of the main causes behind the one-sidedness of most of our arguments: it is unpleasant to reason in this way, and we have to make ourselves do it. Noticing this is the point of this exercise.
