A few days ago, we sat in front of the mirrors from the apartment speaking of beauty. It is clear that your facial characteristics deviate from the norm and it is true that, at least upon first impression, people tend to judge such deviations in a negative manner (1). The word “ugly”, however, is clumsy and best reserved for times when we must be minimalistic in our use of words, such as with jokes and when we do not have the time to be as precise as we would like. This aside, however, the word is only of use for those who wish to insult and those too simple to appreciate beauty in its most subtle forms. Such people are of little interest to you; if they cannot appreciate you, that is their loss. Those who do appreciate you, however, are able to look at a face with such a depth that what matters most of all is the way the face reflects the soul. Have no doubts that your soul is one of the most beautiful and interesting ones that a person can meet. This will be true as long as you allow the full manifestation of the traits that define your individuality — the traits that give you a beauty that cannot be compared.

-Dussault

SIR,

You called me or my argument close-minded. That was inappropriate on your part. As was made clear by how you pointed towards me while referring to unidentified theorists, you made the mistake of attaching the conclusions of others to my own. There are few conclusions which I believe to be my own; I enjoy playing with arguments which lead to drastically different conclusions. Yet, even if this were not the case, you were mistaken in thinking that you could skip steps in my argumentation, thinking that, because it began like those free trade advocates who claim that all countries should instantly implement free trade, it ended with a similar conclusion. I believe that protectionism can be justified, but this does not matter; what matters is that the way I justify this is surely different than whatever justifications float in your head; we are all different, so when we each consider such complex matters with depth, we all form interpretations that are as unique as our minds; by considering the way others interpret things, we can get. I am not writing this letter to speak of my ideas on free trade and protectionism, for that is a subject to be dealt with once the groundwork has been prepared and an effective discussion can be built. You called me close-minded and I must disagree; I am always interested in new ideas and I expect to find them even in people whom I am tempted to underestimate, for they take angles that are, on some issue, unlike any angle I have considered. I do not underestimate you and you should not underestimate me; do not call me close-minded, for that is simply not true.

“Is it true about me?” is the question you should ask yourself. Though I have generally seen you as open-minded, this is not how you have presented yourself today: you refused to give me the benefit of the doubt, assuming that because my arguments began like “them” that they would end like “them”. There are perhaps a limited amount of ways by which we can explore any specific issue, but when we carefully listen to the strings of thought that others develop, we find that what might have seemed predictable is not really so; we each shape arguments in our own way, diverging from the routes others have taken. I have concluded this by trying to predict what others are about to say in such conversations and, when considering the proposition: “is it the same as my prediction?”, I could only conclude that there were significant differences. So: I am my own individual and I expect to be treated as such, not tagged with a label and discarded because you arrogantly believe that you understand all lines of argumentations that flow out of those you tag with this label. This was probably not a conscious approach on your part, but it is precisely what was done.

If you wish to be introduced to new ideas, you must not let people speak only until you have heard enough to box them up, but until you know enough to see how they differ from what you have heard previously — until you have had a specific issue to smoothen out. Of course, there are those who only parrot the words of others; and then there are those who are not interested in delving deeply enough so as to allow themselves to go beyond the thoroughly explored. However, to assume that everyone is as such is close-mindedness; this prevents you from reshaping your thoughts in novel ways because you behave as if you have heard it all and, because of that, make yourself blind to what is new. I do not expect you to be wholly close-minded — you are obviously an intelligent man and have certainly experimented with various thoughts throughout your years –, but  close-mindedness was the source of this conflict and I am quite confident that it was from your part.

Your response offered little basis to support your claim that I was wrong, since you merely attacked the arguments of others, not my own. You told me to identify my assumptions, and when I noted that I had already done so in as clear a fashion as I could have (I began with two stressed IFs), you simply told me to consider these assumptions. When I noted that I had, you committed the naturalistic fallacy, assuming that the descriptive is prescriptive. If the politics you described were indeed for the best, then that must be justified. What you did, however, was try to place the burden of proof on me. It is fallacious to suggest that protectionism is ideal because international trade has always been subject to protectionism

(I am not sure that this use of “always” is perfectly justified, but even if it is, it is only because we spoke of international trade, not all human trade; though there is protectionism between Quebec and Vermont, there is very little between Quebec and Ontario and none at all between Montreal Island and la Montérégie. Why we draw arbitrary lines to say that free trade between Quebec and Ontario is good and yet free trade between Quebec and Vermont is bad, I do not know; if nationality is the issue, then it should be noted that Quebec and Ontario are different nations — should that be cause for taxes on cars etc transported through the border?).

I am done laying down my primary concern, but not my only one: do not think that your mind’s road is wholly traveled. I suspect that this is the mistake that differentiates old men who’s mind is as fresh as ever and those who allow it to stagnate; this is the mistake that differentiates those who read to confirm their beliefs and those who read to challenge their beliefs (and do note that different point of views can be listened to merely to confirm one’s own beliefs, rather than for the sake of understanding the root cause of incompatibility). Hopefully, you are part of the former.

Perhaps I have extrapolated too much; we were, after all, in a classroom setting, preventing us from digging into each other’s ideas as deeply as we could have were time not an issue. However, if this constraint was what led you to be so hasty in dismissing my ideas and giving a predigested response, it is something that you should have stated. Instead, you pursued the thread that I had pulled upon, proving that you had not simplified my position because of the setting, but because of your mistaken assumption that my ideas were the same as the “they” you spoke of.

-Dussault

“Settling an Argument” by Norman Rockwell

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

Last night, I was on the campus of the Université de Montréal (UDM) and met a student, obviously bright yet heavily intoxicated, who repeatedly declared that “la vie c’est d’la marde (life is shit)”. I listened as he repeatedly stated this claim, along with supporting claims such as that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. These seem childish even, but he proved his intelligence through earlier conversations and I could not help but conclude that his claims were not the mere ramblings of a man who has lost his capacity for reason, but conclusions which he supported even with a sober mind. My general observations suggest that what alcohol diminishes is not the ability to make propositions which correspond with one’s sober mind, but the ability to clarify the rational basis on which these conclusions have been founded. So, I assumed that a significant part of him did believe that “life is shit” and I had to say: “I disagree”.

The discussion (if I may call it that) which followed was not constructive since, though he let me begin my sentences, he repeatedly interrupted me a few words in. I do not blame him, since drunkeness increases impulsivity and seems to diminish people’s capacity to listen to others, and the fact that I had so drily disagreed with him might have created some undue tension. My disagreement was purely intellectual and I had assumed him to be capable of debating over a proposition without the interferences of ego. A person who cannot listen cannot discuss, so I put an end to this pointless exchange. However, since his belief that “life is shit” seemed to be a conclusion — a conclusion which I find heavily flawed –, I feel the need to attack it in writing.

One of the first things to keep in mind about this proposition is that it is presented as an objective representation of reality. He did not say “ma vie c’est d’la marde (my life is shit)”, but “la vie c’est d’la marde ([the] life is shit)”. Thus, from his perspective, life, as we all experience it, is shit.

It is difficult to disagree with a proposition with elements left undefined. So, each word must properly be understood. For one, it seems clear that he did not speak of “life” as biologists define it, but as the “universal condition of human existence“. “Universal” could not have been “general” because he spoke in absolute terms and disagreed immediately when I spoke of my own life as not being shit. As for the meaning which he injected into “shit”, it is made clear by his claim that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. Life, it seems, is not an experience worth living; the pleasure we experience is not worth the suffering; we live merely because some force within most prevents us from following the rational course of action (suicide). He spoke of this experience as the only reality, rather than choosing modesty by speaking only of his experiences with life, leaving others to share with him their own.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text