Arguments: A couple of things

Of late, when I had gone to attend some family functions I (and a couple of cousins) had had a lot of arguments with my father, who had also come there, on a lot of sociopolitical issues. In fact, we keep on having a lot of arguments whenver we happen to get together, especially in the recent past. I think just a few years ago I resounded a lot of his opinions. But with time there seem to be a lot of differences, especially because of the change that time has induced in me, hence a lot more argument, heated ones at times, but mostly in vain. It does not matter, though, for there is at least a scope for arguments.

I seem to be digressing right in the beginning of this post, let me get back. During one such recent argumentative session, he remarked, rather disconcertedly, that, "You are the kind of guys who will even doubt Gandhi!". I think he said that as a result of my skeptical, and a little flippant even, comment about Medha Patkar's motives. I immediately replied, "We do. In fact, we need to doubt every opinion, every theory. But there is a difference between the way a lot of others doubt Gandhi, and the way I do. I do it, but with a lot of respect!" That was somewhat agreeable to my father, though not completely.

My reply to my father was derived from the passage that I have quoted below. It is from Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian. While delving on the argumentative tradition of India, Sen takes the exemplar of Arjuna and Krishna's dialogue just before the Mahabharata battle, and presents two different viewpoints - Krishna's deontological view that dictates the moral of doing one's duty without regard to conseqences versus Arjuna's perspective of evaluating the consequences and the purpose of one's victory over another. Eventually, Krishna does manage to convince Arjuna, but that, in no way, is demeaning of Arjuna's views. They are very relevant, specially so during modern times.

As a high-school student, when I asked my Sanskrit teacher whether it would be permissible to say that the divine Krishna got away with an incomplete and unconvincing argument, he replied: 'May be you could say that, but you must say it with adequate respect.' I have presented elsewhere a critique - I hope with adequate respect - of Krishna's deontology, along with Arjuna's consequential perspective, in 'Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason', Journal of Philosophy 97 (Sept. 2000). [Footnote, Page 5]

The operative clause here, though, is "with adequate respect". I find it to be very germane in the context of any serious argument. This is specially important when we are "questioning" some "dogmas". Respect for another person/view helps one to have one's feet grounded, and not get flung away by the flow of one's own arguments. It helps you avoid levity, making you deal with an issue in all seriousness, hence prevents you from swaying. It also makes an argument engaging, and so, potentially more fruitful.
------

Some time back there was a debate on Professor's blog. By no means engaging, but exemplary by being very charactristic of most debates on Gandhi. The caveat: it is a negative example. This post is not about Gandhi, but while we are at the topic in hand, let me mention just a few things. Though I talk about Gandhi, they are more or less general comments.

Gandhi was not a theoretician. His philosophy, his life, his writings -- none of these can be accepted as is or disregarded as invalid, as though they all have an axiomatic basis¹, which itself is either completely correct, or hopelessly wrong. He was a constant experimenter. His life and philosophy is just a set of thoroughly worked out experiments. Not everything that Gandhi said/did can perhaps be corroborated. In such cases, when one finds that there is, indeed, something weak about a particular peice of Gandhian argument, one has to plunge in and expose it. I will go to the extent of saying it is imperative that one does so especially when a dubious argument has become/is potentially a dogma.

Let's suppose, Gandhi's views on economics are not well founded (again, there is no Gandhian Economic Theory). In such an event, one should be able to show the weaknesses in them, with good reason. Not everyone will be glad to accept it, but you can rest assured that an argument based on sound reason will evetually hold. However, this in itself does not necessarily make Gandhi a less respectable (or an "evil") person. The fact that Einstein saw a "greater" reality than Newton or Galileo does not make the latter two ineffectual.
------

But I hardly see any reasonable debate. Most arguments on this topic bank themselves on non-issues. By being passionately irreverent - and they congratulate themselves for doing so - they delve on unnecessary character assassination. It's mostly shouting and name calling that I see. It seems to work also! (Remember Calvin saying, "If you can't win by reason, go for volume!"?)

One "cause" for such choleric outbursts is the supposed "self righteousness" of Gandhi. Statements like, "I hate Gandhi because he was such a self righteous prick!", are not uncommon. Let's even suppose Gandhi was one (actually, it hardly makes any difference to me). So what? In my view, for what it is worth, "righteous" and even "self righteous" people are required in a society. (And perhaps utterly "depraved" people are also required, so that some delicate "balance" is maintained.) Anyway, that's besides the point. I will close this topic by asking two questions, and sincere questions they are: What is so repugnant about self righteousness? And how is a person being self righteous related to the merit of his/her argument?

Do answer. If you are someone who is unbothered about someone being "self righteous", you may still find the second question relevant.
------

I read the first few chapters of Sen's book, and find it appealing thus far. In the first part, he elaborates on the argumentative tradition of India, and revisits a theme several times: religious heterodoxy in Hinduism. Although he mentions the efforts of Akbar in instilling a general sense of religious tolerance, the tradition of heterodoxy, that he claims to have existed, is largely based on arguments, some very ancient ones, within the all encompassing umbrella of Hinduism (perhaps "Hinduism" is too narrow a word). In this light, I want to, for the first time on this blog, strike a very er.. contentious chord. I want to ask this: Is there a similar argumentative tradition in Islam? If you are aware of any literature do point me to it.

My conjecture is this. There is a very small percentage of Islamic fundamentalists, like in any other religion, whose "reason" is based just on religion. There are a large number of "moderate" muslims and a lot of them who are non-religious. Despite that, I feel Islam does not tolerate as much heterodoxy as say Hinduism does. Even the staunchest of its champions recognised and respected other opinions, though they invariably championed their own cause. For example, Madhvacharya wrote Sarvadarshanasangraha (Compendium of Speculations or a "Collection of All Philosophies") in which he expositions sixteen distinct schools of thought. And that included the "atheistic" Charvaka system!

I am not sure if there are any equivalents in Islam. And that is seemingly causing a lot of trouble.
-----

¹ Gandhi has said, "I have nothing new to say to the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills". "Truthfulness" and "non-violence", which he seems to be basing his experiments upon are more like tools than axioms.