Freedom Flyer 2

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

March - April 1984

TALKIN' PHILOSOPHY

Part Two
By Marc Pettigrew

Part One

Here, now, is an elaboration on some of last issue's points on when not to discuss ideas with someone.

When the other person:

refuses to define his terms: All too often, there are those who will use a term, phrase, or even a sentence that needs clarifying or defining. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing what that person is saying, or even worse, neither does he.

Define your terms and make sure they define theirs. Not every word, of course, needs defining --- just the essential concepts that deal with your disagreement. This is the most important barrier to overcome when learning the art of persuasion. If you fail to get anywhere in a discussion, chances are that it's because you or your opponent failed to define your terms of reference. If you encounter a refusal in this regard (i.e., 'There's no need to define anything. I'm not a walking dictionary, you know!'), then it's time to stop debating --- your effort will only prove to be a waste of time.

constantly evades answering your questions: This point may seem rather self-explanatory, but it's not always easy to detect. Note that I use the term 'constantly'.

If, by chance, your opponent only occasionally evades a question throughout a discussion, this is not serious; simply point out that they have done so and ask the question again. Those who constantly evade direct (i.e., defined) questions will usually have a deep-seated tendency to distort the facts of reality in order to accept wrong premises.

limits his terminology entirely to out-of-context concretes: This represents a classic symptom of the decay of contemporary philosophy. Some people simply have no grasp on the purpose of principles in general, nor on their application to reality. Such individuals tend to take each issue 'as it comes' and as a result, lack a sense of consistency when commenting on differing political issues.

You can spot these people a mile away. To wit: almost any politician. Try to apply a principle consistently to more than one issue and they bring up some trivial historical footnote in the 'Annals of Irrelevancy' such as: 'What about the 200 troops that Reagan said he would send to Zimbabwe?' (while you're trying to discuss the concept of freedom in America). And then there's the classic 'There's never been a free country in history, there isn't one now, and there never will be.'

condemns the employment of ideas in your discussion: This problem is somewhat the same in nature as the previous example, but much easier to detect. Common examples include: 'Oh, get your head out of the clouds and down to earth,' or 'That may work in theory but not in practice,' or 'That's just theory; we're talking reality', etc.

condemns the employment of ideals in same: This is quite a different phenomenon from the previous two examples because it primarily reflects attitude towards change. Examples of this attitude range from comments like 'There's no one answer to this problem' to 'One should never strive for a perfect society'. These comments reveal that their speaker has failed to distinguish between what is and what should or could be.

is highly mystical and bases his arguments on faith: This point probably encompasses all theprevious points discussed and is often the premise on which all the others rely.

Mysticism is the philosophy that no statement or belief need be proven; that wishing will make it so. If you've ever heard a comment similar to 'I don't need to prove what I just said. I just feel it.', then trouble's just around the corner.

resorts to intimidation techniques: This could range anywhere from the use of strong emotional statements, calculated to intimidate you into believing them without rational proof, to simply inserting appropriate prefix statements such as Surely you don't think that...' or 'Only a fool would believe that...', etc.

shows no enthusiasm to talk, or even seems perturbed by your presence: This problem should be self-explanatory. However, it's the only point where circumstances may allow you to approach the same person at a future time, since the problem might not lie in disagreement, but in the frame of mind of the mood they were in on a particular day. Or if it's just you they don't like, someone else may be better suited to promote your philosophy.

Space this issue is limited. So next issue, conclude this article with my elaboration on when is best to discuss ideas with people.