Living in New York, it's easy to be liberal.
It's not often I meet someone here – in New York, that is – who forces me to justify and defend my beliefs; the foundations of what I think is... what? ... reality?
As you know, I was on my own Friday night, with Fozz cloistered away to do some studying. Actually, I don't think it was so much studying as it was preparation for studying. Law school, friends. Heavy shit.
In any case, I went to see a movie. After the movie, though, I thought, "I don't particularly care to go back to my empty apartment" (Betty Boop is home for the holiday), so I stopped off at The Font of Dionysis.
There, I met one of my favorite bartender's roommates. This guy was a wicked-smart editor who believes, pretty much, the polar opposite of everything I do. Suddenly I found myself in an unheated, yet rigorous, defense of all the things I hold to be true; my ideas about how things should work.
I got my ass kicked, because this guy was really, really smart, and had well-reasoned arguments to make. That said, I did a little ass-kicking of my own.
He reminded me of Fozzie, who I think might be turning into a Republican courtesy of law school (I kid, Fozz... kinda).
Here's the thing, though. I realized, as this spirited debate raged on that he was well-trained in rhetoric and I was not; that somewhere along the line he learned how to formulate an argument, and I just grew up amongst a bunch of people who stifled their thoughts until they suddenly started shouting at each other.
All this left me wondering (and sort of bewildered at the prospect of) how we carry on any sort of reasoned discussion about our differences in the U.S., when not everyone is operating by the same rules. I mean, I'm not a complete dolt, so in some ways I'm able to put a point across, but I'm not a lawyer.
What I found was that, despite many good points made from either side, neither one of us was willing to back down from his original assertions.
I think what I'm discovering is that rhetoric today isn't so much about making a persuasive argument as it is about not being proved wrong or, perhaps more truly, not being forced to admit that one isn't right.
I'm mis-remembering the details of this, I'm sure, but it reminds me of a story Fozz told me about one of his classes recently. He and his partner were obliged to make an oral argument about something too soul-destroying to recount in detail, and Fozz (or his partner, I can't remember which) made a very good point to the panel of "judges" in front of which he was arguing. Despite the judges agreeing with him (upon reflection, I'm pretty sure it was my Fozz who made the salient point), the opposition just refused to accept that it was either (a) right or (b) germane.
That's how much of the debate going on in our country today seems, to me, to run. Everyone's standing their ground, like a bunch of calcified stalagmites, refusing, metaphorically, to budge.
In this sort of environment, the close-minded hardliners on both sides sort of win by default. If, going in, there's no chance you'll be swayed, then you win. I don't know who said it, but there's a famous quote: "A thinking man is, by definition, uncertain."
I don't think there's a lot of thinking going on in the world today.
Then again, maybe I'm just morose and drunk.
It's not often I meet someone here – in New York, that is – who forces me to justify and defend my beliefs; the foundations of what I think is... what? ... reality?
As you know, I was on my own Friday night, with Fozz cloistered away to do some studying. Actually, I don't think it was so much studying as it was preparation for studying. Law school, friends. Heavy shit.
In any case, I went to see a movie. After the movie, though, I thought, "I don't particularly care to go back to my empty apartment" (Betty Boop is home for the holiday), so I stopped off at The Font of Dionysis.
There, I met one of my favorite bartender's roommates. This guy was a wicked-smart editor who believes, pretty much, the polar opposite of everything I do. Suddenly I found myself in an unheated, yet rigorous, defense of all the things I hold to be true; my ideas about how things should work.
I got my ass kicked, because this guy was really, really smart, and had well-reasoned arguments to make. That said, I did a little ass-kicking of my own.
He reminded me of Fozzie, who I think might be turning into a Republican courtesy of law school (I kid, Fozz... kinda).
Here's the thing, though. I realized, as this spirited debate raged on that he was well-trained in rhetoric and I was not; that somewhere along the line he learned how to formulate an argument, and I just grew up amongst a bunch of people who stifled their thoughts until they suddenly started shouting at each other.
All this left me wondering (and sort of bewildered at the prospect of) how we carry on any sort of reasoned discussion about our differences in the U.S., when not everyone is operating by the same rules. I mean, I'm not a complete dolt, so in some ways I'm able to put a point across, but I'm not a lawyer.
What I found was that, despite many good points made from either side, neither one of us was willing to back down from his original assertions.
I think what I'm discovering is that rhetoric today isn't so much about making a persuasive argument as it is about not being proved wrong or, perhaps more truly, not being forced to admit that one isn't right.
I'm mis-remembering the details of this, I'm sure, but it reminds me of a story Fozz told me about one of his classes recently. He and his partner were obliged to make an oral argument about something too soul-destroying to recount in detail, and Fozz (or his partner, I can't remember which) made a very good point to the panel of "judges" in front of which he was arguing. Despite the judges agreeing with him (upon reflection, I'm pretty sure it was my Fozz who made the salient point), the opposition just refused to accept that it was either (a) right or (b) germane.
That's how much of the debate going on in our country today seems, to me, to run. Everyone's standing their ground, like a bunch of calcified stalagmites, refusing, metaphorically, to budge.
In this sort of environment, the close-minded hardliners on both sides sort of win by default. If, going in, there's no chance you'll be swayed, then you win. I don't know who said it, but there's a famous quote: "A thinking man is, by definition, uncertain."
I don't think there's a lot of thinking going on in the world today.
Then again, maybe I'm just morose and drunk.
1 comment:
Don't forget Joey. The original denotation of liberal is open-minded. And an open-minded person is subject to change his or her mind. Perhaps Mitt Romney is just showing his liberal stripes. Have you been reading Doonesbury of late?
Post a Comment