Paul Graham - How to Disagree

[ohio jones]

Specifically, as Anabaptists, we actually think the substance of who the writer is important, and is a very important part of whether an argument is right or wrong. The idea that you can divorce an idea from the person who created it is not an Anabaptist way of thinking.

This is a special case of the next-to-bottom level, known as ad homennonite.

[Bootstrap]

Specifically, as Anabaptists, we actually think the substance of who the writer is important, and is a very important part of whether an argument is right or wrong. The idea that you can divorce an idea from the person who created it is not an Anabaptist way of thinking.

This is a special case of the next-to-bottom level, known as ad homennonite.

So .... howmennonite is it?

[Soloist]

Or as properly spoken

“I see…”

[Josh]

Basically, I’m a lot more interested in how the Bible tells us to seek and find truth than how Paul Graham tells us to.

(I’ve been reading Graham for about 20 years. I find a disturbing disconnect between his high and mighty talk and then what his venture fund actually funds. In short, I don’t think the world needs more “disruptive” “tech startups” that try to achieve 100X investment returns or that grow their revenue 5% per week, which is the target he sets for his companies.)

In short, I think truth comes from the Word, the Logos. Any other source is a deception, and people who explicitly reject Christ and don’t believe he is the Logos, don’t believe is God, cannot be relied on to lead into any kind of truth.

[Bootstrap]

Basically, I’m a lot more interested in how the Bible tells us to seek and find truth than how Paul Graham tells us to.

We can evaluate this essay in light of the Bible's teaching. Let's start here:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ will be subject to fiery hell.

That seems even stronger than what the essay said.

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

[Bootstrap]

Let's think about the next level from a biblical perspective:

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

At first blush, you might think the Bible has nothing to say about this.

The Bible doesn't explicitly address ad hominem arguments in the same terminology we use today. After all, very little in the Bible is about logical reasoning.

But I think some passages do apply to this. Here are a few:

Proverbs 18:13 (NIV): "To answer before listening— that is folly and shame." If you ignore what someone said and go after the person instead, Proverbs tell us it is unwise and shameful.

Galatians 5 (NIV): lists "dissensions, factions" as fruit of the flesh. Going after the person while ignoring what was said tends to promote dissensions and factions.

James 2:1-4 (NIV): "My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here’s a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" This is a warning against favoritism based on personal characteristics, appearance, status. I think that's actually kind of similar to dismissing their argument based on their identity or position, without engaging with what they actually said.

And I think it can go beyond that. After all, many of the ad hominem attacks are false, all of them stir up quarrels, and discussing the truth or falsehood of the attacks makes it almost impossible to actually discuss topics.

Proverbs 16:28 (NIV): "A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends." And yes, the ad hominem attacks are very much tearing people down with gossip.

Proverbs 26:20 (NIV): "Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down." This verse suggests that gossip fuels conflict and contention.

James 3:5-6 (NIV): "Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."

If we take these scriptures seriously, I don't think we can play the ad hominem attack game. Or the argumentum ad calceum attack game ...

[Josh]

Sorry, Boot, but Paul Graham is just not an advocate for biblical New Testament principles, full stop. And I don’t feel a need to see him as much of an authority on anything, other than venture capital.

[MaxPC]

I agree to disagree.

[Bootstrap]

Sorry, Boot, but Paul Graham is just not an advocate for biblical New Testament principles, full stop. And I don’t feel a need to see him as much of an authority on anything, other than venture capital.

But I think the Bible does speak to some of this, some of it quite directly. And the Bible is an advocate for biblical New Testament principles.

I agree that Paul Graham is not our authority. But I do think we can evaluate what we see out there according to the Bible and other principles as Christians. And I think it's incredibly hard to actually discuss any subject if there's a lot of energy on Graham's levels 1 and 2. All the energy goes into who people like or dislike, forming factions, and ignoring the content of the discussion. Which is not miles away from what the Bible calls gossip. Or what the Bible says in the scriptures I cited above.

[barnhart]

It makes a lot of difference to me who the disagreement is with. With peripheral relationships where you rarely see the person, it's ok to smile, nod and say "I see you feel strongly about this." It's not a crisis that people somewhere disagree with me.