To be honest, i did not really understand anything from the first page of this essay other than ideas that we already know to be true that C.S. Lewis presents as "givens." His opening thoughts in this discussion appeared to me to be just a big bowl of mumbo jumbo an scrambled ideas. I only got the slightest idea of what this essay was trying to say and what in the world "bulverism" even meant when he gave an extended example beginning at the end of the first page. Regarding reason Lewis states that, "Yu must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error." Never would I have thought that perhaps reason is the only that matters in arguments, and that cause or motive is meaningless until reason is justly thrown out. However, that does not mean that I had never realized that causes and motivations can be way overvalued. That explains why biases are a problem.
I was completely dumbfounded when i read that "you must show that a man is wrong before you tsart explaining why he is wrong." I knew that there was some very important meaning behind that statement, but I could not immediately unpackage it because of the simple yet complex way that Lewis writes with.
Lewis goes on to say that "the proof that all proofs are invalid must be invalid itself." For that statement in particular I was not able to see the relevance or affect that it had on the argument against bulverism. Nonetheless, at the end of the first part of this essay I came to the conclusion that you cannot infact prove something wrong simply by questioning someone's motives. That must be true because as Lewis later says, "But thought has no father but thought." I think it is utterly insane that so much of today's world - which is largely politically based - places the emphasis on motive rather than reason, as seen in today's justice system. We, as a society need to reevaluate the simple basics of what upholds the world we live in, especially our justice system and relationships where we are too quick to make even the smallest judgements.
Bulverism is the attack of the person rather than the attack of the argument at hand. Lewis was trying to explain that in modern times, many people use bulverism as an easy-out of a difficult argument. Lewis states that it is important to first attack the argument at hand and then you can see why the person chose his or her stance in necessary. When Lewis states that "you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong", he is explaining the importance of proving someone wrong by their argument rather than by who they are as a person. Although the wording may seem a bit confusing, Lewis is just trying to explain how bulverism is the wrong approach to an argument. It is so important to focus on the argument rather than the person.
ReplyDeleteYou misinterpreted what I said, I know what Bulverism is
ReplyDelete