Tattva-viveka
Western Debate
Nitaisundara Das - February 10, 2009 8:00 pm
I am taking a "logic and argumentation" and was really surprised by what my teacher told me. The first issue we are debating (if you can call the irrational crys 'debating') is the resolution "TV programming in the US is harmful". So the overwhelming majority (well everyone really) of the people who say that yes it is, use the four root issues of obesity, violence, sex, and cognitive ability, almost always in relation to children and adolescents (as if adults[aka themselves] are exempt, HA!).
Anyway, for the sake of originality, depth, and honesty, I was trying to take a more philosophical approach, like TV is harmful because it mostly promotes a sense-centered way of living, and that unfolds to all sorts of harm (samsara ultimately, but I don't think this is the venue for that argument 
). We are following the intercollegiate debate system (although there are different ones) and my teacher told me that my proposal seemed like a "mushy, generic, made-up construct". That was my first hint that he may not be very philosophical. So when I pushed further to understand why, from what he said, it seemed like a debate of value must always rely on emperical studies he wrote me the following:
Yes, philosophical discussions are frequent in academic debate, but they're usually based on something a philosopher already wrote and the writing passed the scrutiny of her philosophical peers. For instance, Foucault, Rorty, Baudrillard, Thoreau, Locke, Hobbes, Plato, etc. are often quoted and their ideas utilized.
The point is this: unless you have philosophical, statistical, expert, etc. backing for your ideas, student debaters are NOT usually afforded the right to make up their own concepts.
Aside from the fact that my ideas for this debate are standard vedanta, and Buddhism for that matter, I was shocked that what he is saying here really equates to an "appeal to authority". Note the conspicuous absence of 'logic' in the list of things that you should have to back your idea. He is saying that in the debate, the student cannot just make logical progressions on the basis of logic, he must cite someone who is acknowledged in academia. (By the way, they do acknowledge eastern thought in these debates, but apparently he is not very familiar, despite his textbook saying all students should be). But then I thought, "SO WHAT if Derrida made a name for himself" all it shows to me is truth is unpopular. Hitler had a philosophy recognized by his peers too. Then I realized that this approach totally relativizes truth. The very fabric of intercollegiate debate is postmodern because it relies on specific region or group's acknowledgment of a "truth". If Plato's ideas were to be miraculously un-discovered overnight, his concepts could no longer hold weight in intercollegiate debate. Nyaya is similar in the sense that it acknowledges logic's shortcoming, but it acknowledges sastra pramana, which balances that. Western debate though seems to try to solve the logic problem by incorporating democratic pramana, that is, if enough people know the name, it is a worthy argument. And all the while we are working from a book called "Critical thinking through argumentation". It should be called, "Thoughtless living through college education". Laughable!
Does anyone (perhaps Brighu, Grant, or Gaura Vijaya specifically, but anyone else too) have experience relevant to this? Am I missing something?
Swami - February 10, 2009 8:58 pm
I am taking a "logic and argumentation" and was really surprised by what my teacher told me. The first issue we are debating (if you can call the irrational crys 'debating') is the resolution "TV programming in the US is harmful". So the overwhelming majority (well everyone really) of the people who say that yes it is, use the four root issues of obesity, violence, sex, and cognitive ability, almost always in relation to children and adolescents (as if adults[aka themselves] are exempt, HA!).
Anyway, for the sake of originality, depth, and honesty, I was trying to take a more philosophical approach, like TV is harmful because it mostly promotes a sense-centered way of living, and that unfolds to all sorts of harm (samsara ultimately, but I don't think this is the venue for that argument
Aside from the fact that my ideas for this debate are standard vedanta, and Buddhism for that matter, I was shocked that what he is saying here really equates to an "appeal to authority". Note the conspicuous absence of 'logic' in the list of things that you should have to back your idea. He is saying that in the debate, the student cannot just make logical progressions on the basis of logic, he must cite someone who is acknowledged in academia. (By the way, they do acknowledge eastern thought in these debates, but apparently he is not very familiar, despite his textbook saying all students should be). But then I thought, "SO WHAT if Derrida made a name for himself" all it shows to me is truth is unpopular. Hitler had a philosophy recognized by his peers too. Then I realized that this approach totally relativizes truth. The very fabric of intercollegiate debate is postmodern because it relies on specific region or group's acknowledgment of a "truth". If Plato's ideas were to be miraculously un-discovered overnight, his concepts could no longer hold weight in intercollegiate debate. Nyaya is similar in the sense that it acknowledges logic's shortcoming, but it acknowledges sastra pramana, which balances that. Western debate though seems to try to solve the logic problem by incorporating democratic pramana, that is, if enough people know the name, it is a worthy argument. And all the while we are working from a book called "Critical thinking through argumentation". It should be called, "Thoughtless living through college education". Laughable!
Does anyone (perhaps Brighu, Grant, or Gaura Vijaya specifically, but anyone else too) have experience relevant to this? Am I missing something?
He is not suggesting "appeal to authority." You misunderstand this logical fallacy, as I have pointed out on another thread. He is saying that your opinions should be backed by well-established authorities, or in our world, sastra. I see no reason why you cannot cite Buddha or the Bhagavad-gita to support your premise, but you better ask him if that will work for his class. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" constitutes saying "this is so becasue such and such authority says so, without explaining the logic of the authority. You cannot just say" this is true because the Gita says so" (in these circles), but you can say that the Gita explains, for example, that the world of "things" is ephemeral, while explaining its logic for taking this position. And such a reference to the authority of the Gita will be appreciated. He is asking you to cite authorities whose positions on issues have been well established, or accepted as true in academia. You must say "my position is such and such, as demonstrated by so and so in his famous experiment . . ." Remember, your own position as stated above is not original. It comes from scriptural authority. Overall your response to the professor seems disrespectful. Yes, you are missing something.
Madan Gopal Das - February 10, 2009 10:14 pm
To mirror what GM said, with the condition that I'm understanding you correctly; In academics you are being requested to cite sources, refer to previous research done, etc. Your classmates who are following the "four root issues" you refer to are then making their argument using those issues as a springboard. They will likely cite previous studies in those areas and try to make a compelling case with information they gather. Your approach is coming a little out of left field and though it has a philosophical premise behind it, you are making it out of the blue. In debate I expect your professor is wanting you to rather side with an already established opinion about this specific topic (which there likely aren't any "TV is maya" research articles connected to some modern academic Vedantist) and then make your argument as to why that opinion makes sense to you, and further you can hopefully strengthen it. My sense of the art of debate in academic circles is that you try to further an already established point of view and beat out new challenges to it. For example, watch the movie "the great debaters" and see how those kids took an argument made by others, applied it to a current issue and fought for it.
Maybe as GM suggests, you could make a new argument about this specific issue from ancient sources, but I don't know if that will fly with the Prof.
Nitaisundara Das - February 10, 2009 10:40 pm
I understand your point Guru Maharaja, I can see how I again was thinking about appeal to authority as if you mention any authority ever that constitutes a fallacy. I do think the Gita would be valid in the class, although I was having trouble integrating the overall premise into the format we have to use, so I already passed it up. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.
The question that I then have is how are these sources assessed? What I mean is if I were in a debate and argued one way, citing the logic of BG as my premise, but another person argues against me, citing Rorty's logic, how would the judge determine who's premise is more logical? It would seem like the logic itself would have to be assessed, divorced from references to accepted thinkers. And then if that is the case, why can the logic not just stand on it's own in the first place? No doubt it is an embellishment to say prominent people have thought this way, but I guess I kind of thought critical thinking meant not letting that influence your assessment of a concept? Like when I first was attracted by GV philosophy, it just made sense to me. The fact that it was coming from various acharya's did not mean anything (at least overtly, although there is sukrti and samskaras involved as well). In sastra there are so many seemingly oppositional viewpoints, just like in western philosophy there is every idea under the sun, but what can distinguish one above the other is the concept (or logic) itself, right? At least from a western academic angle?
(actually now that I think about it intercollegiate debate is judged on who argues better anyway, not who is right, so perhaps there lies my answer in this specific situation).
Nitaisundara Das - February 10, 2009 10:58 pm
To mirror what GM said, with the condition that I'm understanding you correctly; In academics you are being requested to cite sources, refer to previous research done, etc. Your classmates who are following the "four root issues" you refer to are then making their argument using those issues as a springboard. They will likely cite previous studies in those areas and try to make a compelling case with information they gather. Your approach is coming a little out of left field and though it has a philosophical premise behind it, you are making it out of the blue. In debate I expect your professor is wanting you to rather side with an already established opinion about this specific topic (which there likely aren't any "TV is maya" research articles connected to some modern academic Vedantist) and then make your argument as to why that opinion makes sense to you, and further you can hopefully strengthen it. My sense of the art of debate in academic circles is that you try to further an already established point of view and beat out new challenges to it. For example, watch the movie "the great debaters" and see how those kids took an argument made by others, applied it to a current issue and fought for it.Maybe as GM suggests, you could make a new argument about this specific issue from ancient sources, but I don't know if that will fly with the Prof.
I think the "four root issues" are chosen so much because they can be supported directly with research done on the exact, exact premise. Whereas the support for my premise requires more degrees of logical progression, and yes it is not one that can incorporate much existing statistics (except for maybe in demonstrating that TV does tend to promote a materialistic life, and even that might be difficult). The professor does encourage original premises, actually he said that the purpose of the class is not to learn how to debate but get students thinking originally. And I am taking an already established point of view, but I was the one integrating it into television, whereas that has not been done before (at least in any scholarly journals I could find), but my stance is implied in the world-view that I am siding with. I think my error was just in my ability to present it properly in this circumstance.
There are three types of debate we were taught: policy, fact, and value. I feel like the super-statistical approach practically makes this a fact debate (when actually it is technically value), because most people agree hands down that obesity and violence are bad. I was thinking that by making it more philosophical it was more like a value debate, actually discussing the values (as opposed to the behaviors that manifest from the values) that TV promotes. Anyway I think what you said is mostly true, I hope when the next topic comes I will be more adept at taking a philosophical angle.
Grant Upson - February 10, 2009 11:17 pm
Nitai,
Since you mentioned me specifically I feel obligated (although unqualified) to respond. My own foray into higher education was brief and abortive. I will say, however, that your experience in general is one that I shared as a student. It is not always easy to work (and think) within the epistemological framework of academia. The strictures are even greater in a format such as debate, which I gather has certain standards for evidence, protocol, rhetorical techniques, etc.
I recall when you received mantra-diksa that Maharaja made specific note of your great intelligence. Ironically, in college this will be a double-edged sword. You can probably argue circles around even your professor -- but I wouldn’t recommend it. He is trying to “socialize” you by acquainting you with the dominant approach. To the extent that you can adapt (or play along) without feeling you have sacrificed something vital, I think you will be extremely successful.
As for how specific authorities/sources are assessed (not just in debate), those judgments are to at least some degree arbitrary. There are some thinkers and theories that are en vogue (Foucault, in my time) depending on the intellectual tides.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - February 10, 2009 11:44 pm
I think the "four root issues" are chosen so much because they can be supported directly with research done on the exact, exact premise. Whereas the support for my premise requires more degrees of logical progression, and yes it is not one that can incorporate much existing statistics (except for maybe in demonstrating that TV does tend to promote a materialistic life, and even that might be difficult). The professor does encourage original premises, actually he said that the purpose of the class is not to learn how to debate but get students thinking originally. And I am taking an already established point of view, but I was the one integrating it into television, whereas that has not been done before (at least in any scholarly journals I could find), but my stance is implied in the world-view that I am siding with. I think my error was just in my ability to present it properly in this circumstance.
There are three types of debate we were taught: policy, fact, and value. I feel like the super-statistical approach practically makes this a fact debate (when actually it is technically value), because most people agree hands down that obesity and violence are bad. I was thinking that by making it more philosophical it was more like a value debate, actually discussing the values (as opposed to the behaviors that manifest from the values) that TV promotes. Anyway I think what you said is mostly true, I hope when the next topic comes I will be more adept at taking a philosophical angle.
In general an assertive but non-aggressive posture is best while speaking. By linking to the authority which the audience can relate to uses pathos, persuasion by means of emotional appeal. For instance if I speak to a German person I cite Kant or Hegel, from Greece Plato and from United States Emerson and Thoreau. These are my favorites and I use modern day people like Einstein, Heisenberg etc from a scientific viewpoint and Thomas Kuhn from a philosophical one.
These all people hold well for me many times and I try to see the audience and select the references. There are three things which are powerful persuasive skills like Aristotle points out logos, logic which you have plenty, pathos, emotional appeal or connection with audience which is very subtle(you need to learn to make others involved in the discussion) and ethos, which is your own integrity in the eyes of people. The combination of the three leads to the intelligent audience being receptive.
Now doing my PhD I have to cite a lot of people and unless you bring a big breakthrough in thinking like Weitgeinstein for instance, you have to follow this procedure in discussions. Once you gain ground and people respect you for your integrity and logical prowess, or intellectual might(as a person like Feyman had a lot of intellectual might but not a high ethical standard), you will be able to get away.
My favorite quote for the current times is: "Truth is the maximum you can get away with"
My skills are generally better with people outside than they are with many devotees.
In fact many times I am not good enough for TV as my logic is hard to get by for most devotees so you should not be disappointed. I think if you have a some sort of inner happiness or fulfillment that comes through your spiritual experiences then you will handle things more easily and you will not be disturbed that easily. This shows confidence which has a air of calmness in your approach as opposed to arrogance of Bill Reilly;) or Ann Coulter.
Enough said.
Nitaisundara Das - February 10, 2009 11:45 pm
Any intelligence I have often gets muddied by my objectivity-compromising pride, as happened here...
Swami - February 11, 2009 1:58 am
A few more thoughts:
The position that TV is harmful because it promotes self-centered living is much harder to defend than the obesity, violence, sex, and cognitive ability angles. One has to prove that TV promotes self-centered living and that self-centered living is harmful. Some questions arise:
How exactly does TV promote self-centered living? Don't people use it as an escape from their lives (themselves)? Don't they focus on things other than themselves for a while? What does self-centered living really mean? Does TV promote self-centered living more than, say, going to the beach with your family (or alone for that matter!)? If it doesn't, should we label family outings harmful? What about brushing your teeth? What makes self-centeredness harmful? How much self-centeredness is OK? Is self-centeredness the real problem?
By generic, your teacher probably meant that you can say a lot of things are self-centered. It's vague and hard to quantify. It's kind of like saying that TV is maya...the debate would have to go away from the specific issue of TV to more broad issues (what is the purpose of life, what is the self, etc.). Soon you're no longer debating about TV but what selfishness is. By made-up, he seems to think that it wouldn't hold up in a debate--that it is questionable whether it is even true. I suspect that this may be the real issue more than whether or not you are supporting your idea with authority.
Nitaisundara Das - February 11, 2009 3:47 am
What I actually said was "sense-centered" in my earlier post. and how I exactly put it to him originally (although I changed the wording slightly later) was "something that promotes sensual stimulation as an end unto itself is harmful". (the reason I say 'something' is because we had to take the form of a categorical syllogism like this: Something that is (A) is harmful(B ), TV programming(C ) is something that is (A), and thus C is B. Some of the points you mentioned would still pertain to this premise though as well.
There are a lot of regulations that we don't usually go by in making points, for example, I, as the affirmative(agreeing with the resolution) ahve the right to define terms (which can later be challenged by the negative). So in my instance harmful would have been defined as causing mental or physical pain or distress (I think that is fairly defensible). The two main issues I would have to prove would then be that sense gratification as an end-goal is harmful, and TV promotes this lifestyle. The former point is pretty restricted to philosophy, as opposed to emperical studies, but numerous philosophers could back my point. The second I think could be shown possibly if I found the right studies, like an increase in purchasing by those who watch more TV, or the impact of casual attitudes towards sex amongst increased TV viewers(I know there are studies for this), etc. So I dont think it as vague as if I had said self-centeredness. One point the teacher raised is that perhaps these seemingly sensual activities have a mental end, which made me think of trying to include mind in my definition of sense (that might prove to be laborious).
I think my confusion lies in thinking that the western format strives to only accept logos, and citing authority, even if you include their logic, seems to be either playing to pathos or ethos in the strictest sense, for if we are debating concepts, it is ultimately only them that assessments should be made on. I guess I have not totally resolved this. Furthermore, without knowing off hand any western references for my premise, I was reticent to cite any religious text as I assumed that would carry a negative pathos than a positive one. Maybe I just have an extreme view of how you have to make points in academia because I previously was on a mailing list with a bunch of bitter existentialists.
Ultimately intercollegiate debate is not a search for the truth, it is a competition for who can be the most convincing, so in that restricted circle my issue about weighing concepts on their own is irrelevant.
Swami - February 11, 2009 1:43 pm
"Sense-centered" is an even harder to establish argument than "self-centered." What in modern society isn't sense-centered? Basically your argument is that TV is sense-centered, the senses are false because we are the soul, acting on a false platform is harmful to the soul; therefore, TV is harmful.
You immediately have to contend with establishing that something beyond the body and mind exists. How else could you defend that something that is sense-centered causes mental or physical distress? Furthermore, even if you could, it would be a mute point if the soul didn't exist.
You say that "sense-centered" is less vague than "self-centered" because you could prove that there is an increase in purchasing things or increase in casual sex. But how will you establish that casual sex less sense-centered than committed sex? That purchasing things is more sense-centered than watching a sunset?
So you see, your argument isn't really about TV but whether the material world is illusory. You said that your classmates' arguments are illogical. But to say that TV causes obesity, violence, etc. isn't illogical. Furthermore, are you implying that their arguments only have validity by evoking pity (pathos) or ideas that are accepted merely on culturally-specific grounds (ethos)? If so, we should not have a compulsive need to always establish the highest truth when discussing with others. Their arguments seem very appropriate for the context, and overall your outlook about your teacher and the other students sounds condescending and proud.
Yes, one could argue your point, but you seem to have a naive idea of what it would take to do so. I think your time would be better spent by learning to make logical and compelling arguments that stick closer to the issues presented (which seems to be a weak point for you--your logic can be convoluted and difficult to follow). Later you can use these skills to try to establish philosophical points.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - February 11, 2009 8:17 pm
I will just add a few more thoughts on this specific issue. First of all establishing TV as self-centered begs the question that then what is not self centered. Now you will assume that spiritual life is not self-centered. But it is hard to demonstrate that especially when you are sadhaka. It appears overtly selfish as you withdraw yourself from others and protect your spiritual interest which can be termed as "selfish". You are not functioning like the gopis or haridas thakur or ramanuja right now. Only people who will seem to have an upper hand in this self-centered debate are people doing social work. But then again one can argue that you do social work just to get "self-pleasure".
Actually what I told a guy once was that by acting in "selfishly(in the sensual world)" he acts against his self interest(he denies himself opportunity to explore the full myraid of experiences particularly spiritual).
One more point is whether TV is completely bad or some portions of it are bad. If you actually specify the places in which TV is bad instead of making blanket statements, that may help too. Always find a purvapaksin structure and then try to argue out. For instance, one can easily make a point that many TV programs have made people more aware of social issues like racism, global warming, animal rights and woman's issues. Some programs themselves have a philosophical and historical feel to them in the history channel(for example there was a documentary on Kant and Nietzsche). People who will never read the hard and difficult books of certain people can understand many things through TV shows that present concepts in a simple manner for the lay person. Gandhi and his struggle was known by more people through the TV and this was good for providing a global voice for the right cause.
So you can say how excess of TV especially the heavy viewing of violence and sexual content related program can have a negative psychological, emotional(strong mental impressions) and physical impact(lack of exercise) on an individual. It actually makes individuals disconnected from nature and we as humans are part of the natural ecosystem. We need to be more integrated with nature and explore a more wholesome and complete range of human experiences(that can include spiritual experiences). And hence elaborate like that. This is just a quick review of things which came to my mind but obviously GM has given you the best tips already.
Try to delve into it to make some stronger logical structure. You can read Bertrand Russell's "why I am not a Christian" to examine cutting edge logos which the academia wants. Don't get discouraged; I am weak in all these things as well but I am trying to improve.