![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 2nd, 2010 02:55 amThere has recently been a kerfluffle on AVEN regarding whether it is appropriate to tell newbies when they're being offensive. Obviously, I am involved--I love a good argument too much not to be, and in fact it was my comment which started it--but what really hit me was an assertion that, in an argument, a person who becomes obviously angry has lost. (Or, extended, the first person to talk about emotion has lost.)
That strikes me as foolishness. Anger in service of a cause is what fuels that cause. Anger, properly harnessed, is power. If you never get angry about the topic you're debating, you don't care about it enough to make it win. An angerless debate has no spirit, no heart, no passion. Which I suppose is the point, to reduce debate to a sport rather than a productive discussion. Under this rationale, you cannot believe in anything, any more, or else you cannot discuss it; and what on earth is the point of an argument when the only method of choosing sides is assignation, because no one cares about either one! You can't even say "the point is learning how to debate," because if no one can debate topics important to them, we're back to the problem of no one caring. It's a road down the path to Brave New World.
You know, I'm actually quite a cerebral person. It has taken me years to figure out how to label my emotions, how to deal with them, and how to channel them most effectively. Last week I was accused of being a Vulcan. (Yes, really.) And yet the more I consider this, the more value I place in emotion, and more I reject the idea that only completely dispassionate analysis is of any use. Don't get me wrong; I love analysis. It is how I experience the world. But analysis alone, with no conviction and no heart, is worthless. Passionate people get stuff done; people who won't emotionally commit to anything and play their sophist games in the sand. I know which I would rather be.
That strikes me as foolishness. Anger in service of a cause is what fuels that cause. Anger, properly harnessed, is power. If you never get angry about the topic you're debating, you don't care about it enough to make it win. An angerless debate has no spirit, no heart, no passion. Which I suppose is the point, to reduce debate to a sport rather than a productive discussion. Under this rationale, you cannot believe in anything, any more, or else you cannot discuss it; and what on earth is the point of an argument when the only method of choosing sides is assignation, because no one cares about either one! You can't even say "the point is learning how to debate," because if no one can debate topics important to them, we're back to the problem of no one caring. It's a road down the path to Brave New World.
You know, I'm actually quite a cerebral person. It has taken me years to figure out how to label my emotions, how to deal with them, and how to channel them most effectively. Last week I was accused of being a Vulcan. (Yes, really.) And yet the more I consider this, the more value I place in emotion, and more I reject the idea that only completely dispassionate analysis is of any use. Don't get me wrong; I love analysis. It is how I experience the world. But analysis alone, with no conviction and no heart, is worthless. Passionate people get stuff done; people who won't emotionally commit to anything and play their sophist games in the sand. I know which I would rather be.
