It is Chuang Tzu’s assertion that most distinctions are arbitrary, hence most arguments are futile. To what extent are his arguments convincing and logical?
Chuang Tzu argues that most distinctions are arbitrary,
which make arguments based on such distinctions futile. By ‘arbitrary’, he is
suggesting that distinctions depend on individual discretion and are not fixed
by any rule or law. Hence, if every single different distinction is based on
some reasons, then it must be true if considered in a certain context. Thus, if
everything is true, and right, then there really is no reason to argue and
negate, which makes argument futile and purposeless. His argument is largely
convincing and logical because firstly, one’s perspective of matters is greatly
colored by their personal experiences and principles, which makes argument
futile because there is no common basis of comparison. Secondly, due to human’s
ignorance, our stance change frequently making argument pointless because what
was decided today may not stand tomorrow. Thirdly and more importantly,
arguments are futile because there is no way to find out for sure if a
conclusion is absolutely right or wrong. Since a conclusion can never be
reached, why bother to have an argument about anything?
Due to people’s different personal experiences, we all
have a unique set of principles and perspectives on the same matter, resulting
in futile argument because there is hardly any basis of comparison. Take a
nursery rhyme that we are familiar with as an example.
“Row,
row, row your boat,
Gently
down the stream.
Merrily,
merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life
is but a dream.”
In the normal linguistics context, the use of the word
“but” suggests that life is a dream. However, one can tweak the meaning of
“but” around such that the function of the word is to negate. Then, the verse
will suggest that life is not a dream. Many find the second meaning faulty, due
to how they have been taught about linguistics. The ones who are acceptable of
the second meaning are able to disregard whatever knowledge they have about the
use “but” and consider another alternative. Hence, depending on our perspective
and culture, we respond to things differently. In chapter 20 of Chuang Tzu:
The Inner Chapters, Chuang Tzu suggests that “Humans consider Mao Ch’iang
and Li Chi the most beautiful of women. But if fish saw them, they’d head for
deep water. If birds saw them, they’d scatter into azure depths. If deer saw
them, they’d go bounding away. So of these four, which knows the truth about
beauty for all beneath heaven?” Through the use of various animal imagery and
exaggeration, the comparison set up between all the different species produces
a humorous effect. This ridicule human’s definitions of beauty, and more
significantly, mocks the claims we make about matters. These claims are
unnecessary as they are founded on different basis of comparison. This is the
principle of relativity, which suggests that everything is the way it is
claimed to be as long as there are justifications. Hence, arguments based on
such claims are unnecessary and useless because all arguments are right with
relative to something.
Human's ignorance renders most of our argument futile.
Due to our lack of understanding and narrow view of matters, we often fail to
overlook certain details which can be so minute, or even non-existent in the
grander scale of things. Arguments hence arise when we place too much focus on
these irrelevant details. Simply illustrated in Chapter 13, “three in the morning” of the same text,
“a monkey trainer who said at feeding time, “You get three in the morning and
four in the evening.” The monkeys got very angry, so he said, “Okay, I’ll give
you four in the morning and three in the evening.” At this, the monkeys were
happy again.” In the bigger picture, the monkeys did not gain anything more in
the second proposal, yet they were more satisfied with it. This illustrates the
lack of complete understanding of the monkeys, thus rendering their argument
with the trainer futile. The use of anecdote and metaphor effectively convey
the idea that humans are ignorant and more importantly, provoke readers to reflect
about such similar experiences. By relating his arguments to readers’ personal
experiences, Chuang Tzu is able to persuade the readers to agree to his
arguments.
Being a practical person, the most compelling reason as
to why arguments are futile is not because distinctions are arbitrary, but
because there is no conclusion to arguments. It defeats the whole purpose of
having an argument because if one cannot convince another to agree to his
argument, and himself cannot agree to another’s argument, and no one is able to
decide on which is the correct argument,
then the entire episode is just a waste of time. Even if someone is able to
decide on which is the correct argument, if anyone disagrees, the argument
continues endlessly. In Chapter 22, of Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters,
he explains
“Suppose
I win and you lose. Does that mean I’m really right and you’re wrong?
Is
one of us right and the other wrong? Are we both right and both wrong? …
We
could get someone who agrees with you, but if they agree with you how
could
they decide who’s right and wrong? … We could get someone who
agrees
with both of us, but if they agree with both of us how could they decide?
Not
I nor you nor anyone else can know who is right and who wrong. So
what
do we do? Wait for someone else to come along who can decide?”
Chuang Tzu illustrates the inconclusiveness of arguments
through his pseudological debate, and along with the questioning technique at
the end of the debate, a sense of hopelessness is evoked in the reader. This further persuades the reader the futility
of arguments because there is absolutely no way to arrive at any sort of a
resolution.
In conclusion, Chuang Tzu is largely convincing and
logical in presenting his argument that most arguments are futile due to the
fact that most distinctions are arbitrary. However, it is ironic that this
argumentative essay tries to discuss about the futility of arguments. Hence,
although the stand of this essay supports the argument put forth by Chuang Tzu,
the very existence of this essay negates it. The fact that the essay supports
Chuang Tzu’s argument renders all the arguments presented in the essay useless.
Hence, I apologize for wasting your time in reading this essay because nothing
stands.
References
Song lyric of Row Row
Row Your Boat, Virtual Songbook
Retrieved from:
http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/rowyourboat.html
The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations
Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Chuang Tzu: The Inner
Chapters, trans. David Hinton (Counterpoint, 1998)
Burton Watson’s
translation (NY: 1968)
Retrieved from:
http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html
Lin Yutang’s
Translation (Taipei, 1948)
Retrieved from:
http://mindgazer.org/tao/chtzu_level.htm
“Introduction” –
Chuang Tzu, The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, Burton Watson, Trans. (NY:
Columbia University Press, 1968)
No comments:
Post a Comment