Argument for Progress

Fractured arguments seem to be the hallmark of the faithfully moral supporter of tradition and order. Someone content to cuff their views of the world into the shackles of “as is” will do only as much as necessary to provide proof that New and Novel are Useless. They will weakly use the appropriate level of ad hoc rhetoric to “disprove” the benefits claimed of progress. Ironically, this serves to solidify the image that a staunch traditionalist is fearful of consequence.

The point-by-point method would work if combating essential elements of the assertion, knocking down the metaphorical pillars that hold up the argument. But these brain-dead mongrels are not philosophers, they give no respect to intellectual discourse, and lay it all on the feet of “rightness.”

That’s not to say that arguing against secondary characteristics of an argument, i.e. playing Devil’s Advocate doesn’t do service to the issue by bringing it into greater scrutiny. This is necessary when a resolution on action turns inconclusive.

However, erring on Just The Way Things Are Law taught by the ancestors leaves the issue dubiously solved by using contradicting statements of generality, or even aligning an opposing viewpoint with another pre-established moral view is the work of a half-hearted believer. Without comprehensively disproving the argument for action, without neatly decapitating the assertion, a contender is merely an audience member wearing their thumbs down.

A true believer of an order of things does not simply deny the opposition their view. A true believer is willing to look into the deep dark recesses of their faith, to face their own uncertainty, to battle the nemesis of their beliefs, and to come out alive--and maybe even a better person for it.

And this will--as all things in our universe do--unequivocally change them and their beliefs.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum