Get Your Smart On
On the virtues of not being so agreeable and challenging others to think.
To the uninitiated, the world of philosophy can often appear to be little more than an endless, arcane debate. Why do philosophers seem to revel in challenging every assumption, dissecting every statement, and pushing back against every agreeable notion? It's almost as if they find a profound, inherent joy in the intellectual rough-and-tumble, much like a pig finds sheer bliss in a muddy wallow.
Pigs enjoy mud baths because it helps them to regulate their body temperature — they don’t sweat well. The mud also helps to protect them from insect bites, so it’s their version of repellent. And it feels good, of course. That part is very important.
The body politic also needs to regulate its temperature, and philosophers and argumentation is a primary form for letting off steam. Without authentic argumentation a society cannot have authentic political processes, and overheats. So philosophers are the organs of the body politic that are in charge of this. They are made to enjoy arguing with others, for its own sake.
Really, with how things are going, we should probably be arguing more.
Now let’s deal with the insect bites. Swatting opponents away with truth and facts is just as satisfying as shoeing a mosquito. You will see the feminists doing a lot of that in these live debates on TikTok, as I wrote about in “Arguing Is Good.” Asking questions that they know will lead to contradictory and absurd statements. Give them that squished bug look.
But sometimes the annoying buzz comes from the philosopher who annoys her opponent with silly questions that seem to have obvious answers. Socrates himself was accused of being a buzzard and irritating the powerful. No analogy is perfect, I guess.
Now we have arrived at the crux of the matter: it feels good. Why does arguing feel good to philosophers and lawyers, when so much of the population is conflict adverse? While arguing is agonistic, a contest much like sports are a contest, it is also a kind of play. It is more akin to the physical exertion of taking a dance class, or for some it may be ore like wrestling (I’ve never mud wrestled, no matter what you may hear…).
There is dopamine involved. The scientists tell us that the brain’s rewards systems light up the same what it does when we solve a puzzle. Arguing can feel like solving a problem (descried as that “a-ha!” feeling), and philosophers are very problem and critique oriented.
Of course, one must not take things personally (or not too personally), and this is difficult for many. In fact, personal attacks are thought to be out of bounds, not good sportsmanship. Arguing is rather a way to test ideas, and to problem-solve, and to get closer to the truth, irregardless of one’s personal investment in a personal viewpoint.
We really should argue more and get better at it. But I already wrote about that.
Arguing is a skill, you can hone your argumentative prowess. And just like in sports, you learn to use it judiciously because you can crush another with it.
Personally, being able to crush others verbally has been one of the most enjoyable parts of becoming a philosopher. Being a woman and a feminist is no joke, and being able to defend myself confidently with my mouth has proven to be very valuable. I take pride in my abilities, and pleasure in exercising my skills judiciously.
What people maybe don’t realize is that arguing with a philosopher is actually quite safe — there are agreed upon rules of fair play. In everyday life, arguments are messy and emotionally unpredictable. In philosophical and legal contexts, arguments happen within agreed rules. There are precedents, logic, debate etiquette, that removes some of the chaos that scares conflict-averse people.
For the conflict-averse majority, the same exchange can feel threatening because it risks relationships, self-image, and emotional safety. For philosophers and lawyers, the very act of engaging in good argumentation can be its own reward. For us the point is not to win, but to argue well. We rarely get mad when we argue, which I know from experience can be disconcerting for others in our personal lives.
So now you know what pigs philosophers really are — we love a good mud wrestling event just like the next oinker. And sometimes we are the flies in the ointment.
What do you think? I am betting some of you will disagree…
—
P.S. I am reminded how I used to have disagreement rounds in my in class discussions, where you were only allowed to speak in order to challenge or argue against something someone else had said. This got us out of polite agreement real quick. It did make some uncomfortable, but some others jumped at the opportunity, and often it led to a lot of humor and laughter, which is a major way in which people deal with disagreements. My point was just to show them that nothing bad was going to happen if we didn’t all agree on some point. Also, that even if we agree on the large points, there is always still room for discussion. In my liberal arts experience, where the students were often very homogenous and politically aligned, this was useful. I always thought I’d eventually get into trouble for this practice, but surprisingly, I never once had a really upset student (at least upset enough to go to a dept chair that I know of). It’s not something I did a lot, but when I did it it did make an impression…
**Tired of subscriptions? Support Philosophy Publics for as little as $1 over on Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/philosophypublics. **Thank you! 🙏🏼
📣 Announcement: This Tuesday, August 12th, at 1pm EST, we begin an exciting new chapter for Philosophy Publics: I will demonstrate how to create a philosophy course for yourselves. Here is my post from earlier in the week about this: