I suspect Siegel is being charitable in one sense but not in another. To the extent that he takes the anonymous critic's argument seriously and analyzes it systematically, as though the person were engaged in a calm discussion with an aim to understand the truth of the matter, this is bending over backwards to be fair.
However, Siegel can reasonably assume that the person's intention is to express rage, not draw thoughtful conclusions. His invocation of logic is from this perspective facetious and condescending.
Thus how we evaluate Siegel's response depends on whether it is respectful to show your disapproval of anonymous expressions of anti-Semitic rage by treating them as though they were attempts at reasoned discourse, or whether doing so is just a sophisticated way of being snarky. Decent people might disagree about this, but advocates of the latter view may owe us an account of how he could have responded with greater intellectual charity.
Personally, I feel that Siegel is not being intellectually charitable, because he takes a belief that is probably not meant to be seen from given perspective, and evaluates it from that perspective.
For example, it is not intellectually charitable for someone to argue with a radical constructivist saying, "You're view cannot be correct, because there is an external world, and we have all of this proof of it." Instead, the intellectually charitable argument would have to go, "In not presupposing an external world, you cannot function in the way you do, so you must presuppose an external world without presupposing it.".
In applying that to the situation with the anonymous man, we first make the assumption, as Matt said, that the argument is not meant to be a rational one. We make this assumption, because the logical argument has premises that are logically entirely false.
After we have done this, to evaluate his argument as a rational one is not intellectually charitable, even if we try as hard as possible to make his view rationally consistent.
Okay, so suppose we assume that he doesn't really intend a rational argument, though he presents a (bad) one. What is the proper, intellectually charitable response to anonymous hate mail like this?
I hope Josh will weigh in with his take on that.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Siegel is being charitable in one sense but not in another. To the extent that he takes the anonymous critic's argument seriously and analyzes it systematically, as though the person were engaged in a calm discussion with an aim to understand the truth of the matter, this is bending over backwards to be fair.
However, Siegel can reasonably assume that the person's intention is to express rage, not draw thoughtful conclusions. His invocation of logic is from this perspective facetious and condescending.
Thus how we evaluate Siegel's response depends on whether it is respectful to show your disapproval of anonymous expressions of anti-Semitic rage by treating them as though they were attempts at reasoned discourse, or whether doing so is just a sophisticated way of being snarky. Decent people might disagree about this, but advocates of the latter view may owe us an account of how he could have responded with greater intellectual charity.
Personally, I feel that Siegel is not being intellectually charitable, because he takes a belief that is probably not meant to be seen from given perspective, and evaluates it from that perspective.
ReplyDeleteFor example, it is not intellectually charitable for someone to argue with a radical constructivist saying, "You're view cannot be correct, because there is an external world, and we have all of this proof of it." Instead, the intellectually charitable argument would have to go, "In not presupposing an external world, you cannot function in the way you do, so you must presuppose an external world without presupposing it.".
In applying that to the situation with the anonymous man, we first make the assumption, as Matt said, that the argument is not meant to be a rational one. We make this assumption, because the logical argument has premises that are logically entirely false.
After we have done this, to evaluate his argument as a rational one is not intellectually charitable, even if we try as hard as possible to make his view rationally consistent.
Okay, so suppose we assume that he doesn't really intend a rational argument, though he presents a (bad) one. What is the proper, intellectually charitable response to anonymous hate mail like this?
ReplyDeleteIgnore it, and be the bigger man.
ReplyDeleteGender specificity aside, how does ignoring such historically dangerous behavior exhibit intellectual charity (or any other kind?)
ReplyDelete