Argument and Image of Self

By

Obododimma Oha


Anyone who monitors happenings on various platforms on social media, whether on Facebook or WhatsApp, whether on listservs or on Telegram, would testify to the fact that subscribers are often involved in one form of endless argument or another. It sometimes looks like a championship in a theatre and each arguer seems yoked to give a response so as to equalize. I wonder whether such arguers have peace of mind and do something else instead of being worried and going back to read a reaction and to prove a point. The best thing seems to be as the Igbo would say: Onye Imo hụrụ ụkwụ ya ka ọ na-eburu (Anyone whose  feet are sighted by River Imo is the person it carries away) . And so, it is better to leave that person kittting up for a battle to fight self and self alone!

So, if you want to see argument and the performance of the pride over who knows and who does not, go the various forums on social media.

 All the same, people argue so as to enrich the thinking of others and to try to influence behaviour. It is not just to show off. This form of rhetoric is at the heart of human intersubjectivity. We depend on one another. No one knows it all. We,therefore, need other people to bring their ideas to fertilize ours. Other people’s knowledge is really our own resources. Ours is incomplete and is asking to be allowed to become complete, always.

I have identified argument as a form of rhetoric and an appeal to reason, to thinking. It is asking us to think as beings and to think properly. Stephen Toulmin has a good thinking about argument as rhetoric. I unreservedly recomment him. He shows us that it is a process whereby we have to provide proofs or evidence for claims we advance. That is proper, but make sure your proofs are sound, properly supported by other acceptable grounds.

This is where one can bring in more fully the way argument affects self, not just promoting self as a knower. First, a weak proof, say an appeal to pathos pretending to be an appeal to reason, can easily reveal the arguer as being shallow-minded and fraudulently trying to score a point.

Further, when something is obvious and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and one is still arguing, hoping to win, it is obvious that one is further demolishing one’s argument, presenting self as an idiot, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

That self is further distanced and we are being told indirectly to avoid the fellow.

I once had a friend who would argue and argue endlesssly. If you got exhausted and told him that he had won, he would turn around and ask: “How have I won?” That was obviously designed to start another round of argument. The best thing was not to change the topic, for he was still lying in wait. The best thing would be to just run away.

So, what is my admonition? Simply this: do not always argue for the sake of winning arguments. Think of the poor image you cut for yourself before others.Argue, mainly to enrich the thinking of others. If you argue to be seen as the only wise person around, you are, indeed, unwise. Argue because you must, not to add to the problems of others. There is time and context to argue. It is not every time and every where and in every thing. Think and rethink the argument.