You, much like me, are undoubtedly tired of the continuous partisan argument that is happening at every level of government. The sides are vicious to one another, always arguing, never civil, and seeming to never reach a compromise. But dialectic can be just as frustrating. Two sides, utterly content with never reaching a conclusion, exploring minute concepts without end. In class the concept was described as two extremes, a sort of pick-your-poison when it comes to making meaningful progress toward a solution.
As engineers and scientists, it makes sense that we find this kind of conversation frustrating. We live in an industry where success is clearly defined by performance standards and regulations. We are told from an early stage in our education that there is no one correct solution, but rather a number of different viable concepts. Our job is simply to find one that works well enough, that is as aesthetically pleasing, cost-effective, and scientifically sound as possible, and then proceed with that idea, not concerning ourselves with the infimum of other possibilities.
Take for example an engineer designing a bridge. They may iterate through several design concepts before ultimately arriving at a final design, which is eventually built. Once this decision is made, the engineer is no longer concerned with the other possible bridges that could be built, he is focused on making this bridge the best it can be.
I posit that Meno and Plato are not focused on building a bridge, but instead focused on determining every possible structure that could span a chasm. While an interesting discussion, Meno and Plato are never, ever going to get that bridge built.
Perhaps when searching for truth in abstract concepts, like the meaning of virtue, engage in dialectic in order to iterate ideas, but then take a step back. Collect those ideas and put them into a meaningful whole, not an absolute truth but rather an objective one, good enough to get the job done on a day to day basis. We might make more progress as a society if we let go of the idea of being absolutely, infallibly correct, and are instead content with reaching a level of truth that is simply good enough.
My frustration with the dialectic readings, particularly the one with Meno and Plato, certainly stemmed from their inability to recognize that perhaps absolute truth is not obtainable. If Meno really believed that virtue stemmed from honesty and integrity, who is Plato to disagree? I see the value in discussing our personal truths with others. It allows for the opportunity for expansion and further development. But I agree with you that sometimes the bridge just isn’t going to be built. And that’s okay. We should be respectful of each other’s deeply held opinions, and while it is sometimes beneficial to challenge in the pursuit of growth, there reaches a point when it is time to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy initial thought given your example of building that bridge was to ask whether the bridge should be built at all. You know the stupidly famous Jurassic Park quote “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”? I mean, applying the same logic to a widely different situation, if we spent all day talking about the pros and cons of rebirthing extinct reptiles, when we in fact did have the technological capacity to do so, we would never have T-Rexs (T-Rexes?) wondering around San Francisco.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sometimes dialectic poses a problem for advancement and progression and that, like Maggie mentioned, there comes a point where we have to agree to disagree, but I believe that sometimes inaction is the best course of action. This obviously applies to very few cases in today’s world but take as another example all the hesitancy around the building of the nuclear bomb. Although there may not be such a thing as an absolute truth, the various discussions for and against developing the power to potentially destroy the world has continued to fuel ethic studies even today. Again, this is a very unique situation in which the context is just as important to consider, but I’m sure there was some truth to be found.