SIGHED EFFECTS

It is a new year and I decided to have a bit of a new approach.  I’m going to continue to update as much as possible, but I’m taking a bit more time in my writings and going over the things that entertain my mind at the time.  I have also decided to backtrack a bit, recently.  I am going to try my best to not make this pedantic.  If it is too far simplified or convoluted, that is why.

While having a political discussion a bit of time ago, I came upon an instant realisation.  I already understood the concept and was well aware of it but never really felt it was quite so important.  What I realised is that many of these political discussions are being conducted from different perspectives.  While one side is attempting a dialectic, the other side is attempting a debate.

A brief overview, for those not immersed in political science, philosophy, or a similar discipline:

A dialectic is when several parties (2 or more) discuss their perspective and argue their points in a method of persuasion so that everyone involved can work together to uncover the truth.

A debate differs from a dialectic because each party (at least 2 parties) defend their viewpoints aggressively in an attempt to dismiss all other perspectives, or at least gain supremacy of their own perspective.  Typically a debate has a judge and there is often a winner with a prevailing point/perspective.

When I discuss a topic, my perspective is that of the dialectic method.  I welcome challenging viewpoints so that I can consider their merit and adjust my view accordingly.  I defend my perspectives in order to evaluate their own merit.  I’m not trying to “win.”  I’m not trying to make my perspective the only valid perspective.  I’m trying to uncover the truth, for myself and for others.

While both methods demand the members of discussion defend their perspectives, the dialectic and debate differ greatly.  In a basic sense, in a debate everyone is trying to win, but in a dialectic, everyone wins or loses.

Another area that I think is worthy of discussion is the difference between epistemology and ontology, as well as the difference between a positivist and a normative claim.  I think these differences are more dishonest, personally.  I find many people trying to pass normative claims as positivist claims and epistemological claims as ontological claims.  More often, a person counters one with the other.

In a nutshell:

Epistemology is the philosophy of the nature and scope of knowledge.

Ontology is the philosophy of existence.

Is this a steer?

There are many examples that contrast the differences of these claims.  Basically, ontology would say that this photo is a steer, and epistemology would ask how we know this is a steer and what makes it a steer.  To avoid issues of castration and genitals, we could also say:  Ontology says this is a bovine, epistemology asks how come this is a bovine and what makes it a bovine.

Positivism and normative claims are a bit simpler.  Basically, positivism claims that everything is scientific and/or mathematical.  That physical science can explain everything.  Normative claims are more broadly based on how things “ought to be” or how things “should” be.

For this new year, I am going to do my best to maintain the relevant perspective and take the time to separate when appropriate.  If I make a normative claim, I will not insist that it is a positivist claim.  I will not give an epistemological answer to an ontological question.  And I will not debate a point, but rather discuss it from a dialectic perspective.