Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

Prevodilac: Miloš Milosavljević Lektor: Tatjana Jevdjic

Moje ime je Den Koen i ja sam akademik.

My name is Dan Cohen and I am an academic, as he said.

I to znači da argumentujem.

And what that means is that I argue.

It's an important part of my life.

To je važan deo mog života i volim da se raspravljam.

And I like to argue.

And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,

Nisam samo akademik već i filozof,

pa volim da mislim da sam prilično dobar u raspravljanju.

so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.

Ali takođe volim da puno razmišljam o raspravljanju.

But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

And in thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles.

Razmišljajući o raspravljanju naleteo sam na neke zagonetke

And one of the puzzles is that,

i jedna od zagonetki je ta

as I've been thinking about arguing over the years --

da kako sam razmišljao o raspravljanju tokom godina,

and it's been decades now --

a sada su to već decenije, postao sam bolji u raspravljanju,

I've gotten better at arguing.

But the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing,

ali što više raspravljam i što sam bolji u tome, to više gubim.

the more that I lose.

And that's a puzzle.

I to je zagonetka.

And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.

A druga zagonetka je da mi je to u stvari u redu.

Why is it that I'm okay with losing

Zašto mi je u redu da gubim

and why is it that I think good arguers are actually better at losing?

i zašto mislim da dobri raspravljači

u stvari bolje gube?

Well, there are some other puzzles.

Ima i još nekih zagonetki.

One is: why do we argue?

Jedna je: zašto raspravljamo? Ko ima koristi od rasprave?

Who benefits from arguments?

When I think about arguments, I'm talking about --

I kad razmišljam o raspravama, govorim o –

let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments --

nazovimo ih akademskim raspravama ili saznajnim raspravama,

where something cognitive is at stake:

gde je ulog nešto saznajno.

Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?

Da li je ova tvrdnja tačna? Da li je ova teorija dobra?

Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text? And so on.

Da li je ovo ostvarivo tumačenje podataka ili teksta?

I'm not interested really in arguments about whose turn it is to do the dishes

I tako dalje. Nisam baš zainteresovan za rasprave o tome

čiji je red da pere sudove ili ko treba da iznese đubre.

or who has to take out the garbage.

Yeah, we have those arguments, too.

Da, imamo i te rasprave takođe.

I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.

Obično dobijam te rasprave jer znam trikove.

Ali to nisu važne rasprave.

But those aren't the important arguments.

Zainteresovan sam za akademske rasprave danas

I'm interested in academic arguments,

i evo onoga što me zbunjuje.

and here are the things that puzzle me.

Prvo, šta dobri raspravljači dobiju kad dobiju raspravu?

First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?

What do I win if I convince you

Šta dobijam ako vas ubedim

that utilitarianism isn't really the right framework

da utilitarizam nije baš pravi okvir za razmišljanje o etičkim teorijama?

for thinking about ethical theories?

Šta onda dobijamo kada dobijemo raspravu?

What do we win when we win an argument?

Čak pre toga, ono što je meni važno je

Even before that,

what does it matter to me

da li imate ideju da Kantova teorija funkcioniše

whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works

or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?

ili je Mil pravi etičar kog treba slediti?

Ne smeta mi ako mislite

It's no skin off my back

whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind.

da je funkcionalizam upotrebljiva teorija uma.

So why do we even try to argue?

Zašto onda uopšte pokušavamo da raspravljamo?

Why do we try to convince other people

Zašto pokušavamo da ubedimo druge ljude

to believe things they don't want to believe,

da veruju u stvari u koje ne žele da veruju?

and is that even a nice thing to do?

I da li je to čak pristojno?

Is that a nice way to treat another human being,

Da li je to lep način ophođenja sa drugim ljudskim bićem,

try and make them think something they don't want to think?

pokušati učiniti da misle nešto što ne žele da misle?

Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.

U odgovoru ću se pozvati

na tri modela rasprave.

The first model -- let's call it the dialectical model --

Prvi model, nazovimo ga dijalektički model –

is we think of arguments as war; you know what that's like --

kad mislimo o raspravi kao o ratu i znate kako to izgleda.

a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.

Ima puno vriske i vike

i pobeđivanja i gubljenja

i to nije baš koristan model raspravljanja,

That's not a very helpful model for arguing,

but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.

ali je vrlo uobičajen i ukorenjen.

But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.

Ali postoji drugi model rasprave: rasprave kao dokazi.

Think of a mathematician's argument.

Pomislite na raspravu matematičara.

Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?

Evo mog dokaza. Je l' funkcioniše? Je l' valja?

Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?

Da li su pretpostavke opravdane? Da li su izvođenja valjana?

Da li zaključak sledi iz pretpostavki?

Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

No opposition, no adversariality --

Bez opozicije, bez neprijateljstva,

not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

bez obaveznog raspravljanja u neprijateljskom smislu.

But there's a third model to keep in mind

Ali treba imati na umu i treći model

that I think is going to be very helpful,

koji će, ja mislim, biti veoma koristan

and that is arguments as performances, arguments in front of an audience.

i to su rasprave kao predstave,

rasprave pred publikom.

We can think of a politician trying to present a position,

Možemo zamisliti političara koji pokušava da predstavi gledište,

trying to convince the audience of something.

pokušava da ubedi publiku u nešto.

But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important;

Ali postoji drugi oblik ovog modela za koji stvarno mislim da je važan.

namely, that when we argue before an audience,

Naime, kada raspravljamo pred publikom,

sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument;

ponekad ona ima više ulogu učesnika u raspravi

that is, arguments are also [performances] in front of juries,

to jest, rasprave su takođe saslušanja pred porotom

who make a judgment and decide the case.

koja presuđuje i donosi odluku.

Nazovimo ovo retoričkim modelom,

Let's call this the rhetorical model,

where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.

gde treba da skrojite vaše argumente za publiku pred vama.

You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

Ako predstavite zdrav, dobro postavljen,

tight argument in English before a francophone audience

čvrst argument na engleskom pred frankofonom publikom,

just isn't going to work.

to prosto neće funkcionisati.

So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof

Imamo ove modele – raspravu kao rat,

raspravu kao dokaz i raspravu kao predstavu.

and argument as performance.

Od ova tri, rasprava kao rat je dominantna.

Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.

It dominates how we talk about arguments,

Ona dominira u tome kako govorimo o raspravama,

it dominates how we think about arguments,

dominira u tome kako razmišljamo o argumentima

and because of that, it shapes how we argue,

i zbog toga oblikuje ono kako raspravljamo,

our actual conduct in arguments.

naše ponašanje u raspravama.

Now, when we talk about arguments,

Kada razgovaramo o argumentima,

we talk in a very militaristic language.

da, razgovaramo vrlo militarističkim jezikom.

We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,

Hoćemo jake argumente, koji imaju puno oštrine,

arguments that are right on target.

argumente koji pogađaju tačno u metu.

We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.

Hoćemo da imamo podignute odbrane i spremne strategije.

We want killer arguments.

Hoćemo argumente koji ubijaju.

That's the kind of argument we want.

To su argumenti koje hoćemo.

It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

To je dominantan način razmišljanja o argumentima.

When I'm talking about arguments,

Kad govorim o argumentima, to je verovatno

that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.

ono što ste pomislili, neprijateljski model.

But the war metaphor,

Ali metafora rata, paradigma rata

the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,

ili model za razmišljanje o raspravama ima,

has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.

ja mislim, deformišuće efekte na ono kako raspravljamo.

Prvo, uzdiže taktiku iznad sadržaja.

First, it elevates tactics over substance.

You can take a class in logic, argumentation.

Možete uzeti čas iz logike, argumentaciju.

Naučićete sve o izgovorima koje ljudi koriste

You learn all about the subterfuges

that people use to try and win arguments -- the false steps.

da bi pokušali da pobede u raspravi, pogrešnim koracima.

It magnifies the us-versus them aspect of it.

Ovo preuveličava aspekt "mi protiv njih".

It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.

Raspravu čini neprijateljskom. Polarizuje je.

And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph -- glorious triumph --

I jedini predvidivi ishodi

su trijumf, veličanstveni trijumf ili bedan, sraman poraz.

or abject, ignominious defeat.

I think those are deforming effects,

Mislim da su to deformišući efekti i najgore od svega,

and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation

kao da sprečavaju stvari kao što su pregovori

or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.

ili dogovaranje ili kompromis

ili saradnja.

Think about that one -- have you ever entered an argument thinking,

Razmislite o tome.

Jeste li ikada ušli u raspravu misleći: "Hajde da ispregovaramo o nečemu,

"Let's see if we can hash something out, rather than fight it out.

a ne da se borimo oko toga.

What can we work out together?"

Šta možemo da rešimo zajedno?"

I think the argument-as-war metaphor

I mislim da metafora "rasprava kao rat"

sprečava ove druge vrste rešavanja rasprave.

inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.

And finally -- this is really the worst thing --

I konačno, ovo je stvarno najgora stvar,

arguments don't seem to get us anywhere; they're dead ends.

rasprave nas ne vode nikuda.

One su ćorsokaci.

They are like roundabouts or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.

One su kružne raskrsnice ili zastoji u saobraćaju u razgovoru.

We don't get anywhere.

Ne stižemo nikuda.

And one more thing.

I još jedna stvar, kao predavaču

And as an educator, this is the one that really bothers me:

ovo mi stvarno smeta:

If argument is war,

ako je rasprava rat, onda to podrazumeva

then there's an implicit equation of learning with losing.

učenje uz gubljenje.

And let me explain what I mean.

Da objasnim šta mislim.

Recimo da vi ja raspravljamo.

Suppose you and I have an argument.

You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.

Vi verujete u tvrdnju T, a ja ne.

And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?"

I ja kažem: "Zašto ne verujete u T?"

And you give me your reasons.

I vi mi date vaše razloge.

And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?"

I ja prigovorim i kažem: "A šta ako...?"

And you answer my objection.

I vi odgovorite na moj prigovor.

And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?

I ja imam pitanje: "Na šta mislite?

How does it apply over here?"

Kako se to primenjuje u ovom slučaju?" I vi odgovorite na moje pitanje.

And you answer my question.

Now, suppose at the end of the day,

Pretpostavite na kraju dana,

I've objected, I've questioned,

prigovarao sam, dovodio sam u pitanje,

I've raised all sorts of counter counter-considerations

izneo sam sve vrste suprotnih mišljenja

and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.

i u svim slučajevima odgovorili ste tako da sam bio zadovoljan.

And so at the end of the day, I say,

Tako da na kraju dana kažem:

"You know what? I guess you're right: P."

"Znate šta? Mislim da ste u pravu. T."

So, I have a new belief.

Tako da imam novo uverenje. I to nije bilo kakvo uverenje,

And it's not just any belief;

nego jasno, ispitano,

it's well-articulated, examined -- it's a battle-tested belief.

testirano u borbi.

Great cognitive gain.

Veliki saznajni dobitak. Ok. Ko je dobio tu raspravu?

OK, who won that argument?

Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won,

Metafora rata nas primorava da kažemo

da ste vi pobedili, iako sam ja onaj koji je ostvario saznajni dobitak.

even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.

Šta ste vi dobili saznajno od ubeđivanja mene?

What did you gain, cognitively, from convincing me?

Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,

Naravno, od toga ste dobili neko zadovoljstvo,

maybe you get some professional status

možda vam je ego porastao,

možda ste dobili neki profesionalni status u tom polju.

in the field -- "This guy's a good arguer."

Ovaj tip je dobar raspravljač.

But just from a cognitive point of view,

Ali saznajno – samo sa tačke gledišta saznanja – ko je pobednik?

who was the winner?

The war metaphor forces us into thinking that you're the winner and I lost,

Metafora rata nas tera da razmišljamo

da ste vi pobednik, a da sam ja izgubio

even though I gained.

i pored toga što sam dobio.

And there's something wrong with that picture.

Nešto nije u redu sa tom slikom.

I to je slika koju bih stvarno hteo da promenimo ako možemo.

And that's the picture I really want to change if we can.

So, how can we find ways

Kako možemo da nađemo načine da učinimo da rasprave

to make arguments yield something positive?

doprinesu nečem pozitivnom?

What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.

Ono što nam treba su nove strategije izlaska iz rasprava.

But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments

Ali nećemo imati nove strategije izlaska iz rasprava

until we have new entry approaches to arguments.

dok ne budemo imali nove polazne pristupe raspravama.

We need to think of new kinds of arguments.

Treba da razmišljamo o novim vrstama rasprava.

Da bismo to uradili, pa,

In order to do that, well --

I don't know how to do that.

ne znam kako to da uradimo.

That's the bad news.

To su loše vesti.

The argument-as-war metaphor is just ... it's a monster.

Metafora "rasprava kao rat" je monstrum.

It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

Prosto se nastanila u našem umu

and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it.

i nema čarobnog metka koji će je ubiti.

Nema čarobnog štapića koji će učiniti da nestane.

There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.

Nemam odgovor.

I don't have an answer.

But I have some suggestions.

Ali imam neke predloge

Here's my suggestion:

i evo mog predloga.

If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,

Ako hoćemo da razmišljamo o novim vrstama rasprava,

what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.

ono što treba da uradimo je da razmišljamo o novoj vrsti raspravljača.

So try this:

Pokušajte ovo.

Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.

Pomislite na sve uloge koje ljudi igraju u raspravama.

There's the proponent and the opponent

Tu su zagovornik i oponent

in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

u neprijateljskoj, dijalektičkoj raspravi.

There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

Tu je publika u retoričkim raspravama.

There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.

Tu je onaj koji zaključuje u raspravi kao dokazivanju.

All these different roles.

Sve ove različite uloge. Možete li sada zamisliti raspravu

Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer,

u kojoj ste vi onaj koji raspravlja, ali ste takođe i u publici

but you're also in the audience, watching yourself argue?

i gledate sebe kako raspravljate?

Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,

Možete li da zamislite sebe kako raspravljate

i gubite raspravu, pa ipak na kraju rasprave kažete:

losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument, saying,

"Oh, ovo je bila dobra rasprava."

"Wow, that was a good argument!"

Možete li to da uradite? Mislim da možete.

Can you do that?

I think you can, and I think if you can imagine that kind of argument,

I mislim da, ako zamislite tu vrstu rasprave

where the loser says to the winner and the audience and the jury can say,

u kojoj gubitnik kaže pobedniku

i publika i porota mogu da kažu:

"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

"Da, to je bila dobra rasprava",

then you have imagined a good argument.

onda ste zamislili dobru raspravu.

And more than that,

I više od toga, mislim da ste zamislili

I think you've imagined a good arguer,

dobrog raspravljača, takvog

an arguer that's worthy of the kind of arguer you should try to be.

kakav biste vi trebalo da pokušate da budete.

Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

Ja gubim puno rasprava.

It takes practice to become a good arguer,

Potrebna je vežba da biste postali dobri u raspravljanju

in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately,

u smislu da budete u stanju da izvučete korist iz gubljenja,

I've had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up

ali srećom, imam puno kolega

koji su bili voljni da istupe i omoguće mi tu vežbu.

and provide that practice for me.

Thank you.

Hvala vam.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)