First of all, the debates we see on TV between politicians are not real. The politicians themselves might think they're real, but those "debates" are not an attempt to get at the truth through dialectic methods. It's more about making your opponent appear nervous and incapable than discovering anything truthful. For that, there are professional academic debates, and I live for these events. I've also picked up some good methods myself. For instance, we had a debate this week in the philosophy club at the U. It was pretty informal, which is fine, but when I see people prepare for a debate by getting out one or more large books, I know I'm watching amateurs. Our guests this week were two professed experts on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I should have felt sorry for these guys, but I don't. If you wish to debate philosophy, you MUST read the works of more than just one philosopher. Then, you have to be able to expain the arguments from memory. If you have to look it up in a book while you are debating, you are not prepared for the debate. The question of human rights is HUGE in philosophy today. It may be the hottest issue of all. So when these Ayn Rand "experts" came to the debate, that's the first question I asked. To my astonishment, they had to look up the answer in a book! Don't these guys know anything about philosophy? One of them actually had the nerve to tell me that he's read the works of John Rawls. Fine. But if you can't produce the arguments of Rawls from memory, don't bother telling me that you've read his books. In philosophy, if you don't have the arguments in your head already, you don't deserve to have a degree! I don't even know what these guys had for academic credentials except for a bookcase full of Rand's stuff. But to do what I do, I had to study at least 200 philosophers just in my undergraduate work. I read a shelf-full of books just to prepare for my first classes.

I don't want to break any hearts, because I know she has a lot of admirers, but if Ayn Rand is your favorite philosopher, ask yourself how many works of philosophy you've actually read. If she's the only one, don't bother telling me she's your favorite because that implies that you're knowledgable of more than one and can make a comparison. To be totally honest, when it comes to cutting edge political theory, Ayn Rand is not even on the radar screen. But these guys had the nerve to tell us that Rand would be happy to know that she's aggravated so many REAL philosophers. I'm sorry, but being a renegade in philosophy is just like being an ordinary person with a strong opinion. Nobody cares!

Debate can be a long, drawn-out affair that can go on for years in the form of letters. But what I'm talking about is the professional debate that goes on in front of an audience. A few years ago, I went to a debate on the U campus between a Mormon apologist and a Christian minister. Being a huge fanatic of debate, I watched them closely. The Mormon apologist started by arranging at least 15-20 books on the table in front of him. The minister had just one book, of course. Need I mention the title?

I couldn't imagine what the Mormon apologist intended to do with all of the books. Was he just going to look up quotes the whole time? Well, they both did just that. It wasn't a debate like I'm used to seeing. These guys had nothing of their own to defend. They were just quoting other people. But if they don't have the issues committed to memory, how on earth do they get to be respected well enough as experts to actually be invited to an academic debate?

There is no debate in religion. It never amounts to anything more than "my book is better than yours," or "my prophet is better." There is no dialectic process to be observed. There is no information to be gleaned from the process because they are just reciting from books that anyone can read. Some people can actually memorize long tracts of scripture and they can use that in debate, but in the end, it's just the same. A scriptorian is just a person who has memorized someone else's philosophy. A mindless computer can do that, and much better.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2010 07:50PM by Troy.

Reminds me of all the times companions on my mission would get into "bible bashing" debates with random people. I hated listening to their "debates". Each side simply pointed at verses and back and forth it went. Neither side was thinking. I would usually take the opportunity to space out and dream of being home.