No critical thinking or intellectual discussion can shy away from building or using arguments that lead or establish specific conclusions. Arguments are what distinguishes sent or non-critical thinking from critical thinking, and they are an important tool for discovering the truth for the sake of oneself first, for sharing ideas and conclusions or for persuading the party The other rightly or wrongly an idea second. Argument is necessary for any search for the truth of what is happening or said, as it is necessary for the critical mind, which does not accept what is given to it just because of its confidence in the sayer or simply because the saying agreed with his desire. Hajj is what distinguishes the process of critical thinking from preaching and preaching. If critical thinking is based on arguments and proof, then da’wah and preaching are based on preaching, enticement and intimidation, or arousing emotion and passion, and they do not establish statements; As far as they stem from faiths or postulates or absolutes.
Arguments are a set of reasons that justify the formation of a certain conviction, or to convince someone of it.
Arguments are usually distinguished from explanation.
Arguments are important to prove that something is true, while explanation is important for understanding why that thing is true, i.e., arguments serve as proof, while explanations serve as statement and understanding.
For the foregoing, arguments are one of the important tools in philosophical discussion, and they are also necessary in moral reasoning to prove the moral or immorality of an action or behavior by providing the necessary justifications that explain why it is good or bad, and what sources on the basis of which it was considered good or ugly.
Personalization is the shift from discussing the idea to discussing the person who said it or exposing him in order to invalidate his argument or to confuse his idea. When the argument fails, personalization helps, as the accusation of mercenarism is often repeated in political comments and debates, for example, in an attempt to challenge the credibility of the idea.
It is possible to distinguish between types of arguments according to the fields in which they are used, such as verbal, legal, moral and other arguments; Each field has its own nature that imposes itself on the form and construction of the arguments used. The Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 BC) was one of the founding figures in Greek and Western philosophy in general, and he used the method of pilgrims to educate his colleagues in Athens and provoke their thinking, and he would talk to people in the street and ask them about courage, knowledge, justice, etc., then presents His arguments are to show that their perceptions on these topics are muddled or incorrect.
In my articles, I try to establish statements or criticize statements by establishing arguments and criticizing counter-arguments in an intense and complex manner by looking at the circumstances and details related to the issue under study to form a holistic vision, which is the perception that I see worthy of opinion articles, meaning that it establishes statements and criticizes others through coherent arguments first. And based on solid information II. Opinion in this sense is not just thoughts, reflections, or personal views.
And if we follow a lot of dialogues related to intellectual and political issues, especially through social media, we find a wonder, and we could have been satisfied with that if we were limited to “creative fluff” or “gossip” or only impressions here and there, but to comment on Hajjaj My mind with such comments that are not based on counter-argument or abstain from discussion by attempts to ridicule or pretend to be clear, this is a problem that calls for complete disregard, but what I am interested here in contemplating false or false forms of counter-argument that require clarification in order to develop the discussion and take it a step.
In the following, I will address 6 examples that caught my eye through facts and discussions that caught me recently, from which we can derive multiple models for the so-called “invalid argument.” These models can be applied to other and repeated examples in our discussions.
the first:
Personalization is the shift from discussing the idea to discussing the one who said it or exposing it in order to invalidate his argument or to confuse his idea, when the argument fails, personalization helps. The accusation of mercenarism is often repeated in political comments and debates, for example, in an attempt to challenge the credibility of the idea; By accusing the person who says it simply because he works in the party or country with which he intersects in an idea or policy. Making a livelihood is a concept that can be called every person who pursues a profession in which he lives, and no responsible person can not make a living; That he has a financial resource from which to live and meet his needs and those who depend. Making mercenaries is nothing more than an attempt to insult something that is not an insult, especially if the job or profession that a person undertakes is declared and clear.Yes, it is different if a person lives with his political positions that are invested by another party; So that his profession becomes that he is an opponent, then this is a suspicion or an accusation; It requires proving the link between his opposition and the state policies that spend on him in order to distinguish between his personal convictions and the policies of that state, because this relationship is not devoid of political consensus and coercion and investment as well. Therefore, it can be said that there is a difference between suspicion and argument to express this complex situation.
The second:
Building generalizations on partial information. For example, The New York Times - late last month (May) - published a full-page advertisement that includes pictures of 3 influential figures who supported the Palestinians during the recent Israeli war on Gaza, and in the headline Al-Arid “Hamas calls for a second Holocaust,” and on the right of the page also in bold, the hadith “The Hour will not come until Muslims fight the Jews…”, some of them rushed to the conclusion that the newspaper was colluding with the Zionist lobby in America, but the same newspaper published a few days later another page collecting photos The children who were killed by Israel in Gaza during the aforementioned war, and although it did not mention who was responsible for this, this act is unprecedented and has an important symbolic significance; As the Palestinian victims have been humanized, they are no longer just numbers.The combination of the two images gives a clearer vision for those who want to evaluate the work of the newspaper, while the first conclusion is based on correct information, but it is partial and is not sufficient to come up with such a generalization.
Another example relates this time to the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' rejection of the Sheikh Zayed Book Award. The German Qantara website published an article by Stefan Weidner criticizing Habermas' rejection of the award. He argues that he does not appreciate the reform policy of the Emirates, and that even if it is issued by authoritarian rulers, it can have a positive impact on the modern culture and values that Habermas defends, as dialogue is more important than the Western abolitionist culture that claims integrity and does not accept criticism. Some of them were rushed to the conclusion from the publication of this article that the site tends to the Emirates, but the site itself published a few days later another article by Reinhard Schulze based on a counter-argument to the first article, and its writer believes that Habermas’s refusal is not a Western arrogance; Because Habermas proceeded in his assessment of the award from the necessity of creating cultural spaces demanding human rights, relying in his position on the power of the word, and this article included a reprimand for the Emirates.Both articles make it clear that the site does not have a specific position on the subject of the award at least, apart from evaluating its performance on other topics and issues which also need study and analysis to build an adequate, appropriate and generalizable argument.
Such conclusions and generalizations are closer to impressions than to building coherent arguments, and the reasons for haste are varied;
It may occur due to a lack of vision, selectivity, or a political motive imposed by the rivalry and taking advantage of the opportunity to undermine the opponent, and this happens from some media channels in the context of controversy;
It conveys correct information, but it is incomplete and may give rise to harmful impressions of the truth;
Although she didn't tell a lie.
Third:
Starting from preconceived or wrong assumptions. For example, some defenders of the positive Iranian role in the resistance were unable to understand my critical position on the relationship between the Palestinian resistance movements and Iran except from a bilateral angle (the issue of Syria versus the issue of Palestine), or claiming that the issue is due to a viewpoint Subjective by the Syrians (sic!) as opposed to an objective view by others in looking at Hamas's thanks to Iran.
These biased assumptions prevented the author from understanding the article last week, which referred to the various Arab countries in which Iran intervened directly and through its militias, and the resulting disruption of its political unity and crimes committed in order to dominate and protect its national interests. Moreover, the essence of my discussion is the rejection of the exceptionality of the Palestinian issue in return for the insistence on returning to the overall moral principle that unites all similar issues. The issue is not Palestinian, nor Syrian, nor Iraqi, nor Lebanese. Rather, it is the value of justice and the rejection of injustice. Whether it came from occupation or from tyranny; As a result of the correlation between occupation and tyranny.
Moreover, the insertion of the duality of objectivity and subjectivity here is totally foreign to the subject, so there is no room for subjectivity in the issue of Palestine or Syria or the rest of the Iranian intervention countries;
The issue is based on information, facts, questions and arguments.
If we suppose that the Syrians proceed from a subjective position, then we must say that the Palestinians also proceed from a subjective position. In fact, there is no meaning for all such pilgrims;
Because it lacks the characteristics of a valid argument which are 3 here:
The first is
that it does not reflect reality, as the topic of discussion is completely different, as previously.
The second
is that it is not valid for generalization.
Criticizing the position of Hamas was not only the position of Syrians versus non-Syrians;
Other nationalities, some of them Palestinians, participated in it. In addition, criticism is not the position of all Syrians either. The regime and its group are with thanks to Iran.
The third
is that it is inappropriate for the topic of discussion.
Because the issue is based on facts and facts on the ground and not subjective perceptions.
Sometimes it is based on preconceived assumptions that imprison thinking and obscure reality, and thus the pilgrims are corrupt; Assuming a prior bias in the other and then selecting facts that help or confirm this interpretation (selectivity), such as claiming, for example, that everyone supported by Iran becomes an arm of it, as Iran supports Hamas, so Hamas is an Iranian arm. This is a rotten argument; Because it was based on a false premise, and I explained in an article last week the difference between Hamas as a Palestinian resistance movement that owns its Palestinian vision and decision, and between Hezbollah and Shiite militias that are based on sectarian ideology first, and secondly implement Iranian agendas that follow the Wali al-Faqih. Such corrupt pilgrims actually perform political functions. He wants to reduce the Palestinian issue to Hamas; To justify his failure to support the Palestinians first, to justify normalization second, and thirdly to undermine Hamas as a resistance movement; Although Palestine is not Hamas, and the issue is resistance to the Zionist occupation, not Hamas, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood.
It was said in the justification for Iran’s thanks recently that it is a necessity, and it is undoubtedly not a necessity related to the “necessity of self-preservation”;
Rather, it is a necessity in the political and strategic sense that is related to the resistance alliances and support them to perform their tasks
the fourth:
Resorting to exhaustive justifications that are themselves in need of proof and proof, such as the claim of necessity, for example, while necessity is not a self-sufficient argument; Since it must be proven that there is an actual necessity in order to build upon it and arrange the provisions of necessity on it without excess (without satiation or pleasure, i.e. at a minimum), there is a great ease in using the logic of necessity to justify any political action undertaken by “our group”, while What works as a necessity for Islamists, for example, is perfectly suitable for their opponents from the ruling regimes, and the necessity of one party is not more important than the necessity of the other, otherwise the problem will appear in “who governs or practices politics” and not in “the form of governance and the practice of politics”; As long as the Islamist, when he comes to exercising power or politics, justifies necessities - in its flexible sense - to justify his practices that are inconsistent with his reference or ideology.Moreover, the use of necessity in this broad and uncontrolled sense puts the Islamist in particular before an important challenge, which is to prove to us the facet of his distinction - in the field of practice - from his opponents.
For example, in the justification for Iran’s thanks recently, it was said that it is a necessity, and it is undoubtedly not a necessity related to the “necessity of self-preservation”; Rather, it is a necessity in the political and strategic sense that relates to the resistance alliances and their support to perform their tasks. I do not want here to return to the discussion of the policy of gratitude that I discussed extensively in last week’s article; I just want to represent the idea of necessity.Let us admit - for the sake of argument - that there is a political necessity for this act, meaning that without thanks the support will cease, and that this Iranian support will not exist for the resistance without it. This - assuming acceptance of it - is a partial truth; Because the resistance is not based only on support, but is based on a principled and moral legitimacy, and on a popular Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and humanitarian incubator, which requires the resistance to balance its need for all these parties together, and not to split the ranks of its popular incubator with the privacy of Iran, for example. Repressing criticism of Iran’s investment in the resistance, but rather in relying on the unity and principle of issues that reflect the general internationalist sentiment of the Palestinian cause; A single body is hurt by the complaint of any of its members. This shows that the argument that criticism of Iran's behavior confuses the idea of "the unity of the nation" - especially after the victory of Gaza - is false; Because the discussion here is not about the principle of nurturing the unity of the nation, but about our different perceptions of its applications.
Fifth:
Using a wrong analogy in order to clarify the discussion, for example, some of them measured the issue of praying for the infidel - as I explained in previous articles - to thanking Iran and praying to Khamenei, and thought that it was necessary for me. This very remote measure has no basis; With its dimension that I will ignore now to focus on the fallacy in it, the issue is not just a thank you - as I explained in an article last week - it is a political investment and a public relations campaign to wash reputation, then it is not linked to specific people, we are talking about state policy here, and the central issue here To clarify the extent of the fallacy, I explained in an article last week that the martyr himself will not be forgiven for the crimes he committed in relation to the rights of people, so how about the unjust or criminal ruler against his own people or the peoples of other countries, so he inserted the issue of supplication and mixed it with thanksgiving and exceeded that we are discussing in a moral political discussion, It is a fallacy or corrupt arguments, and such fallacies are committed with the aim of harassing or to confuse ideas or to corrupt the arguments from their origin so that they become meaningless.
VI:
Separating the theoretical and the practical by asking for practical alternatives, and it may have been said that theorizing is easy, although it is not like that for those who practice it. This form of pilgrim involves a number of problems. The first is that it diverts the discussion from its course; The practical question does not cancel the theoretical question; They are two different questions. The second is that he refused to discuss the principle or the theoretical basis of the question under study; The aim here is to silence critical voices, or, at the very least, to demonstrate that the practical takes precedence over the theory, and this reflects a purely pragmatic position. In fact, there is a correlation between the theoretical and the practical. The theory without practical applications drowns in idealism and abstraction, and the practical without a theoretical basis drowns in pure pragmatism and variegated according to the immediate and narrow interests; In the absence of an overall standard to be used. Hence, there is a need to theorize for any behavior, policy or movement to control its work and provide the necessary justifications for it so that its work is not dependent on immediate and improvised thinking, and according to each event individually and according to manifestations.The absence of theorizing is a major reason for the prevalence of the tendency to justify and to bend (in the sense of warping, which is an eloquent term) at any juncture; On the pretext of necessity at times, and interest at other times, and so on.
In conclusion, it must be said that the pilgrims are a tool of critical and philosophical thinking. If it becomes a faculty, it can be used in various ways, and the moral conscience may be absent from it.
Its owner resorts to building arguments for and against the idea according to the interest, and thus is able to convince his audience and addressees or justify the policies of the party or movement;
This is another justification for the necessity of theorizing and setting standards that narrow the margin for maneuvering and manipulation, and also control the limits of the exercise of power so that its reference is outside the limits of the thinking of those in charge of it, and ensures a kind of transparency and healthy discussion among its audience as well.
There is a well-known prophetic hadith, which explains that the queen of Hajjaj is employed, and in it the Prophet - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - says: “You dispute with me, and perhaps some of you may be more vocal about their arguments than others, so I judge according to what I hear. If he takes it, I cut him a piece of fire.” (Bukhari and Muslim).