Persuasion
by Ciro D'Agostino
Persuasion: What are the reasons for such desire?
If what I say interests you, a feeling of connectedness begins to form. I become warmer toward you. I get the pleasure of your interest, and you get the gift of my ideas. We may disagree on some issues, but our pleasure comes from sharing ideas, and the enrichment of our knowledge overcomes the differences that normally exist between two people.
To have someone interested in my ideas, and to take an interest in someone else's ideas, is a difficult task, which requires a strong will from both parties before a reciprocal understanding and respect is established. To understand someone else, even on purely intellectual level, is never easy. Most of the time, openness to ideas and argumentative sharpness are not equal on both sides of the discussion. Those with a strong desire to persuade are unlikely to yield to persuasion easily. They are as stubborn as their persuasive drive is strong.
To argue a point to someone we offer him reason, but how far can this go? At the end of reason comes persuasion. A natural question to ask is: isn’t it possible to persuade by logic alone? Of course; but honestly, how many of you have witnessed pure logic prevail, outside a narrowly defined context? Very rarely I would say!
Just imagine how logic would work when there is our profession and personal interest at stake? Given the eagerness to win on one side, and the resistance to change on the other, even professional competence may not be enough to ensure understanding or agreement on even simple points.
Many philosophers and scientists even find it very hard to understand others of their same profession. They have a mutual resistance to ideas other than their own. In particular, two philosophers known to be resistant to others' ideas were Kant and Leibniz.
In a letter written in 1675, Leibniz describes how the style of philosophers like Bacon and Gassendi attracts him, while philosophers like Galileo repel him. The reason was that understanding those like Galileo required "Deep Meditation." He found it difficult, he explained, to follow precisely written or geometrical arguments: "Personally, though I have always loved to think by myself, I have always found it hard to read books which one cannot understand without much meditation, for in following one’s thoughts, one follows a certain natural inclination and so gains profit with pleasure. One is violently disturbed, in contrast, when compelled to follow the thought of some else."
Kant, in a letter written when he was seventy years old, tells of the great difficulty he had in grasping other philosophers’ ideas. He could grasp the writing of his opponent only with the most extreme effort, because it was nearly impossible for him to understand someone else given his own system of thought. He admitted this to himself, so he left the defense of his philosophy to the students and to his friends. Because Leibniz and Kant were original, creative philosophers, their difficulty in following others is the corollary of their intensity of thought in their own directions. In this sense, Ayn Rand was like Kant and Leibniz; she would use questions and suggestion of others merely to stimulate and to set in motion her own thoughts.
A philosopher is naturally more difficult to persuade, philosophically, than a layman. To every philosopher even an ally is his opponent, because, when their mutual opponent is absent, the allies’ differences grow more apparent. Just like in our own families, a brother or a father who resembles us shares our sensitivities, knows our weak and sore spots, end enters into our lives in every way.
To be continued ...
Discuss this Article (19 messages)
|
